Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HIGHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (HARBOURS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Class Sizes

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average class size in the years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): In 1989–90 there were on average 26·4 pupils per class in maintained primary schools and 20·7 pupils per class in maintained secondary schools in England. Information on class sizes in 1990–91 is not yet available.

Mr. Battle: Is not it clear that despite a drop in pupil numbers, class sizes rose last year for the first time for 20 years? Does not that show that there has been a cut in resources and that primary and nursery schools in particular are under pressure as a result of the Government's policies?

Mr. Fallon: The pupil-teacher ratio to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not linked directly to class size, which depends as much on how staff members are deployed as on how many there are. The ratio has fallen from 19:1 in the late 1970s to about 17:1 today.

Mr. Pawsey: Can my hon. Friend strike a comparison between teacher numbers in 1979—the last year of the Labour Government—and teacher numbers in 1989? Will he confirm that education spending this year is 16 per cent. higher than that for the preceding year? Does he agree that much of the additional funding is being spent on teachers?

Mr. Fallon: As always, my hon. Friend is well informed on these matters. I am sure that he would like to know that the teacher vacancy rate, at 1·6 per cent., is the lowest of almost any profession. Vacancies have fallen significantly in the past year and last year we had the most applications for teacher training since 1977.

Mr. Fatchett: Is not the Minister confused yet again? According to The Times Educational Supplement of 3 May, a spokesman for the Department said that the figures that

had been published by the Department for 1990–91 seemed to show an increase in the pupil-teacher ratio, but the Minister has denied those figures. In fact, he said that they were not available. When will he tell the truth to the House and when will he accept that there has been a deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio because of the Government's inadequate funding policy?

Mr. Fallon: I explained in my main answer that information on class sizes is not available. I was trying to explain to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that class size is not the same as the pupil-teacher ratio. Class size depends just as much on how staff members are deployed as on how many staff there are. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, of all people, would understand the difference.

Mr. Batiste: Is not it clear that if schools opt for grant-maintained status they will be able to liberate from local authorities a great deal of money that could be made available, at least in part, for recruiting teachers and reducing class sizes? In Leeds, for example, comprehensive schools could liberate between £250,000 and £500,000 a year. That would buy many extra teachers.

Mr. Fallon: There is much that local education authorities can do to reduce central bureaucracy and the numbers of administrators and advisers to get more resources down to the classroom level. A central feature of local management of schools is that we are driving resources through the council hall direct to the classrooms, where they are needed.

Nursery Education

Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that high-quality nursery education is available for children throughout the country; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities about increasing the number of nursery places available.

Mrs. Heal: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that high-quality nursery education is available for children throughout the country; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is for local authorities to determine the extent and form of provision for the under-fives in their areas.

Mr. Lofthouse: As the Carlton club seminar suggested a lack of Government policy towards nursery education, what is the Secretary of State doing to encourage Tory-controlled local authorities which are not spending their allocation on under-five and nursery education?

Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there has been a considerable increase in the number of under-fives attending nursery schools and in nursery provision. Indeed, 150,000 more youngsters attend now than did in 1979.

Mrs. Heal: Does the Minister agree with the findings of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts which reinforced the belief in the importance of nursery


education to assist children in their education and socialisation? Will he ensure that there is a nursery place for every three and four-year-old child who needs and chooses to have one?

Mr. Eggar: I have already said that there has been a significant increase in the numbers attending. We have also made available an extra £150 million to local authorities next year, over and above what was available last year. I suggest that the hon. Lady has a word with her Front-Bench spokesman on public expenditure, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who, when she held my position, could not find the resources for nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. I notice that she has refused to do so on behalf of the Labour party.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Minister accept that, having seen at first hand with one of my children the enormous benefits of nursery education, it seems to me shortsighted for the Government to abandon any form of national strategy in this area of educational provision? Although the Government may be concentrating on education post-16, is not it true that the quality of children's earliest experiences of education has an important bearing on their ability to make good use of the later opportunities that they get in life?

Mr. Eggar: It is a rather distressing fact that the local education authorities that have large numbers of nursery places available also have some of the worst GCSE results and the worst staying-on rates in the country.

Mr. Tracey: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the London borough of Wandsworth a nursery place is provided for every child between the age of three and five who requires it? Should not that example be copied by a few Labour local education authorities?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend and I suggest that Wandsworth offers help to Labour LEAs to show them how it can be done.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend elaborate on what he said a moment ago? Was not it the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who confirmed that her Government could not afford nursery education? Is not it the height of cynicism for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to go round City lunches trying to convince the City that they are not going to increase spending when they cannot afford it, while telling parents who want nursery education that they will fund it to the skies?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen must either put up or shut up. They have said that they will produce funding by scrapping the city technology college programme. The amount of funding that they could produce would fund all of 50 part-time nursery places for each LEA in the country. That is not overall provision of nursery classes for youngsters under five and they know it.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although I welcome in principle the additional 150,000 children who are able to have nursery education, should not the Government consider what is achieved as a result of increased investment in nursery education? Is not it true that 20 of the top 25 nursery-providing local education authorities produce GCE O-level results that are at the national average or lower?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend and many of those same authorities have appallingly low staying-on rates post-16. Labour local education authorities should be concentrating on standards in their schools throughout compulsory school age to get the right results for children aged 16 and beyond.

Ms. Armstrong: Perhaps the Government need to make up their mind whether education for our young children is good. What consideration have they given to the remarks from the Carlton club that the Government's nursery commitment—or lack of it—is damaging, potentially vote-losing and must be corrected? Will the Minister be honest with the House about the figures which as the Carlton club says are both false and misleading? The Government claim that Britain is doing well in comparison with other European countries, but we are doing appallingly badly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a rather long question.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that there are more three and four-year-olds in nursery schools than there were in 1979 and that the Government are making £740 million available to local education authorities for the provision of nursery classes for youngsters. Furthermore, if the hon. Lady believes that she can give an undertaking that the Labour party will make nursery education available to all three and four-year-olds, I challenge her to say so unequivocally and to get it endorsed by the hon. Member for Derby, South.

Education and Training

Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the participation rate in post-16 education and training.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government's plans for increasing the participation rate in post-16 education and training were contained in the two White Papers published yesterday.

Ms. Short: I welcome the White Paper that the Secretary of State announced yesterday. However, it was belated and it is a great pity that it has taken 12 years to take some action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!".] Conservative Members may jeer, but we have one of the lowest post-16 participation rates in Europe. That means that our young people and our economy are disadvantaged. The Government should have taken action earlier.
Will the Minister reconsider two points? First, there is a division between the administration of sixth forms and that of further education colleges and sixth form centres. There is a real danger that it will perpetuate the——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be rather contagious. Will the hon. Lady ask a question, please?

Ms. Short: I am asking a question. I asked the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter for a serious reason.
Secondly, the Minister is unwilling to reform A-levels in the way that was recommended by Higginson and many others. Will he reconsider that so that we can give parity of esteem to academic and vocational attainment?

Mr. Clarke: First, I am grateful for the hon. Lady's welcome of yesterday's White Papers. Like many other hon. Members, she was unable to be here yesterday—she was no doubt engaged elsewhere. She may have noticed that the White Papers were welcomed by those with whom she normally shares those Benches—the Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists and the Liberal Democrats. Will she persuade Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to welcome the White Papers and to stop making churlish points against them which are slightly confusing most of the issues?
On the status of further education and sixth form colleges, I believe that independence from local education authority control will enhance the ability of both types of colleges to respond to student demands. I agree that we want both to offer a wider range of courses and to make no sharp distinction between the academic sixth form colleges and vocational further education colleges. We want to continue blurring that distinction.
I have forgotten the hon. Lady's third point.

Ms. Short: A-levels.

Mr. Clarke: On A-levels, there is a difference between us. We propose an over-arching diploma which people can attain either by achieving the right standards in academic courses with A-levels or in vocational courses with BTEC or national vocational qualifications, or a combination of the two. I do not think that it would be right to scrap A-levels, which is the Labour party's position. We must keep up academic standards and put in place vocational qualifications that reach the same high standards and the same parity of esteem.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If three questions are asked in one supplementary, we shall make very slow progress. One question please from Dr. Hampson.

Dr. Hampson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of just how much the polytechnics will enhance their appeal as a result of his resolute decision yesterday to abolish the artificial barrier between polytechnics and universities which, despite the flannel from the Opposition, was always supported by Labour Governments? Will my right hon. and learned Friend use his powers under schedule 7 to the Education Reform Act 1988 to change by order the names of any polytechnics that wish to do that, so that we avoid what would otherwise be a three-year marketing blight?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the proposed change, which will be supported by directors of polytechnics, including at least two former Labour Ministers, Chris Price and Gerry Fowler. I shall consider the possibility of allowing name changes in the interim period, but I believe that we shall have to wait for the necessary legislation to pass through the House. With regard to overseas contacts, polytechnics are disadvantaged because they have to explain that they are, in anybody else's language, universities—certainly, of the same standard as other universities. The name distorts students' preferences when applying for entry to polytechnics. I shall take up my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion that I may have powers to act on this issue.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State spoke a moment ago about the new diploma being over-arching. How exactly will it work? Will it be a relabelling of existing exams such

as A-level, AS level and BTEC, will it be a separate examination in addition to those, or will it involve a reform of those examinations together with a system of credit accumulation?

Mr. Clarke: It will underline the equal status for the different qualifications by setting out standards that are genuine equivalents, so that they can be recognised by those in universities and employers and by setting a bench mark to establish the equivalents between academic qualifications and vocational qualifications or, increasingly, a combination of the two. I explained that system yesterday and I think that it is perfectly comprehensible.

Mrs. Currie: May I welcome the marvellous plans that have been announced for post-16 education, particularly to take colleges out of local authority control and reduce the unnecessary differences between polytechnics and universities? Would my right hon. and learned Friend like to make himself a real hero in Derbyshire, where we have neither a university nor a polytechnic? Will he consider designating one of the colleges, preferably in Derby, as a polytechnic as soon as possible?

Mr. Clarke: I am disappointed to hear that I have not yet attained heroic status in my neighbouring county of Derbyshire. I have recently designated a college in East Anglia as a polytechnic, having been advised that it had the standards and comprehensive nature of courses to justify that description. We shall retain quality and I look forward to the day when a college in Derbyshire will reach the right level of quality to become a university, rather than a polytechnic. My city of Nottingham benefits considerably from having within its boundaries a first-class university and polytechnic and I am sure that Derby aspires to the same.

Exam Results

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will encourage schools to publish their exam results; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eggar: Schools are already required to publish details of their GCSE, A-level and AS-level exam results in their prospectuses.
My right hon. and learned Friend intends in the near future to lay regulations that will extend the existing requirements. The regulations will require schools to publish their results in all examinations in a common and consistent form.

Mr. Sumberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is not it vital that we get on with the process and publish the information quickly so that, just as in the private sector, parents have as much information as possible before they determine which school their child should go to?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend and we shall also investigate ways of ensuring that further education colleges publish their results in a consistent form that allows comparisons between schools and FE colleges.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that unless there is early assessment and clear identification of the potential of children enrolled in any school, publishing results could misrepresent the achievements of the teachers, parents and pupils of that school?

Mr. Eggar: I agree entirely that it is important to assess children from an early age. That is why we are committed to assessment and testing for those aged seven and 11. We have had too many distressing letters from parents and individuals about how they or their teachers failed to recognise deficiencies in one sector or another. As has been said repeatedly to me, when a child is 16 it is too late to identify weaknesses. People have urged me on this matter and I believe that the way forward is to assess pupils at ages seven and 11.

Education and Training

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of 16-yearolds leave full-time education or training.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The latest provisional figures show that the proportion of 16-year-olds leaving full-time education or training after completing their compulsory schooling fell to 41 per cent. last year. That means a fall of 11 percentage points in only the past four years. The great majority of those who leave go into jobs with part-time education or training, or take part in youth training schemes. Contrary to much popular belief, only about 10 per cent. of 16-year-old school leavers in this country drop out of education and training completely and they are people who choose to reject the guaranteed training place on offer to all of them.

Mr. Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage local education authorities, if not schools, to publish their own figures relating to the number of students staying on for full-time or part-time education, so that those who at present are not tempted to do so will realise that they are cheating themselves of opportunities in their future working lives?

Mr. Clarke: That is an excellent suggestion. My hon. Friend's original question concerned the proportion of students who leave, but I think that schools should be encouraged to publish their staying-on levels, which are steadily improving across the education system. A written answer to another hon. Member this afternoon will shed further light on the improvements that we are achieving in our schools.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: In response to a question from me yesterday, the Secretary of State made it clear that the proposed funding for the increased number of students whom he expected to stay on after the age of 16—and, indeed, to enter higher and further education—would arise naturally out of the increased funding that each individual student attracts for the college or university concerned. On that basis, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that he envisages an overall cut in funding per student during the period of increase and that colleges will therefore be unable to maintain their present standards?

Mr. Clarke: No. What I was saying to the hon. Gentleman, and will say again now, was that our funding system was linked to the growth in the number of students. It would be a great mistake for any Secretary of State to abandon a mechanism that linked the increase in funding to the number of students attracted. The financing of our policy will be geared to its success. Our aim is to expand

the number of students receiving education and training after the age of 16, but, of course, to achieve that expansion in a cost-effective way.

Mr. Butterfill: The proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend announced in the White Papers yesterday will provide considerable encouragement for 16-year-olds to stay on at school. Will he encourage Opposition sceptics to visit Bournemouth polytechnic, which has led the way in the development of vocational degrees and courses? Far from being derided by employers, such courses are now highly regarded internationally and show the way for other similar colleges of learning to develop for the future.

Mr. Clarke: I would commend such a visit to any hon. Member who wanted to see what has been achieved by Bournemouth and by many other polytechnics across the country. I have not made such a visit recently; nor, no doubt, has the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). When I have visited polytechnics, however, I have found that they have all achieved great success since—contrary to the preference of the Labour party—we took them out of local government control. They all expect to make further progress in future.

Mr. Andrew Smith: To encourage more 16-year-olds to stay on, will the Secretary of State tell us what his proposed advanced diploma offers young people over and above the A-levels and vocational qualifications which he says that it comprises? If vocational qualifications are truly to be the equivalent of A-levels, why should not the two be combined in the form of a broader advanced certificate, as Labour proposes?
Will the Secretary of State now answer the question that he ducked when it was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)? Why should not we introduce credit accumulation as between the different elements of the advanced diploma? Will such credit accumulation be introduced?

Mr. Clarke: The diploma answers a valid criticism of the system in this country—the charge that the confusing number of qualifications of all kinds has created a maze through which parents and students must try to find their way. The structure of the advanced diploma will—like that of the baccalaureate in France and the equivalent qualifications in Germany, but, I think, in a better way than either—allow academic and vocational qualifications of the same standard to be recognised as a benchmark for advance into higher education or certain types of employment. We have introduced clarity to our system.
As I said yesterday, the Labour party insists that everybody must have the same qualifications. With the greatest respect, I must point out that it proposes to scrap A-levels and much of our vocational system and to substitute some mishmash qualification that is meant to be put modestly within the ability of everybody. That would not serve the purposes of our students or of the economy.
Credit accumulation is a perfectly sensible suggestion. In my letter to the School Examinations and Assessment Council, I cautiously suggested how we might consider it further for students who want to transfer from an A-level course to a course run by the Business and Technician Education Council.

Hendon School

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the number of pupils applying to attend Hendon school since it became a grant-maintained school.

Mr. Eggar: I understand that applications for first-year places have risen sharply since the school became grant maintained in 1989. So far this year, there have been 348 applications, compared with 270 in 1990 and 200 in 1989.

Mr. Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Hendon school's last year as a local authority school, 100 pupils applied? Is not the dramatic growth since then a vindication of Government policy and a tribute to the school's headmaster, staff and governors? Would not it be mean-minded and extreme folly to reverse the policy and ignore the wishes of parents and pupils?

Mr. Eggar: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Any fair-minded individual who saw what had been achieved in Hendon in the past two years would recognise how entirely inappropriate it is for the Labour party to be determined to ignore the wishes of parents and, in effect, destroy an excellent school that has been turned itself round in a short time, thanks to our grant-maintained policy.

Sir Bernard Braine: As one who, 60 years ago, was a pupil at Hendon school and has been deeply grateful to his teachers ever since, I warmly welcome the school's decision to opt for grant-maintained status. Is my hon. Friend further aware that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) visited the school last year, he was met by an experienced member of staff who said, "Although I have always been a member of the Labour party, the school's decision to go for direct-grant status was the best decision that it has ever made"?

Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend told me that, and I received a similar message when I visited the school. I am sure that pupils at Hendon school, and all hon. Members, welcome and recognise the considerable education advantages that my right hon. Friend gained from his time at that school.

Sports Council

Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss the extra financing of that body.

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Robert Atkins): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her maiden question on sport. I have regular meetings with the chairman whenever necessary and will meet him in the summer to discuss his corporate plan and additional funding requirements for 1992–93. The Sports Council's current grant in aid is £46·7 million.

Miss Hoey: I welcome the Minister to his first sport questions. I am sure that he will agree that it is time that sport had its own Question Time.
Has the Minister had time in the past few months to study the implications of the increase in VAT for sport and sports clubs? What is his view of the ludicrous position

whereby for every £1 that the Government give sport they take £8 away? What will he do about that as Minister for Sport?

Mr. Atkins: As the hon. Lady well knows, VAT is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government have demonstrated that their commitment to sport, in whatever capacity, is second to none. I do not need to take lessons from Opposition Members on how we are committed to sport and are spending money on it.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making his maiden answer to a question on sport and on answering it so brilliantly. Is he aware that we believe wholeheartedly that when he meets the chairman of the Sports Council, he will give him every satisfaction?

Mr. Atkins: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not sure that I can deliver the satisfaction that he is talking about, but I shall try.

Mr. Pendry: I shall not congratulate the Minister on his first answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), which was little short of a disgrace, especially in view of the answer which he gave to me only last week when he made it clear that, given the cuts in the urban programme, the Government have stolen £15·7 million from sport and, next year, plan to find £5·3 million cuts on top of that. Is not it time that the Government stopped parading themselves as the friends of sport while such highway robbery is going on?

Mr. Atkins: Uncharacterisitically, the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. As I said earlier in response to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), the Government have demonstrated that we are committed to sport in a variety of areas. Only a month or two ago, I was able to find a further £1 million for extra coaching, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a foundation for—[Interruption.] It is no good the Opposition behaving like football hooligans. If they want to hear the facts, I shall give them. In a recent speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the setting up of a foundation for sport and the arts, which will, in due course, more than double the money committed to sport. The hon. Gentleman should not go round whingeing about the Government's lack of spending. We have shown that we have done more than a Labour Government ever did.

Mr. Holt: When my hon. Friend leaves the Chamber, will he pick up a telephone to ring the chairman of the Sports Council and tell him that he will not pay one penny piece to Cleveland county council until my constituent, Mr. J. G. Campbell, and his son are treated fairly? The boy, who is a captain of the Middlesbrough football schools XI, has been denied the opportunity to continue to represent his home town and possibly to go on to greater things in football because the mean, vindictive and spiteful Cleveland county council will not recognise the Macmillan city technology college for the excellent place that it is.

Mr. Atkins: I find it inexplicable that people can be mean and small-minded enough to prevent a young boy who plays a game to a high standard from continuing to represent his town. My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) will have my full support in any campaign that they care to mount


to get the youngster back playing for his town and representing his county at the game that he plays so well. The best of luck to him.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that I, at least, am absolutely delighted that he is so interested in sport? May I advise him to get as much practice as possible between now and the next general election because he is for the high jump?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman should know better than most that his hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, who asked the main question, is more likely to be for the high jump than I am.

Mr. Soames: Has my hon. Friend seen that in the otherwise excellent report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a locus in this.

Mr. Soames: Has my hon. Friend seen that in the otherwise excellent report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs a suggestion that the affairs of horse racing should come under the Department of Education and Science? If that is the case, will he assure the House and the country that the Sports Council will have no part in it?

Mr. Atkins: If equine quadrupeds were brought under the control of my Department, it might at least be able to explain what they were. As my hon. Friend knows, horse racing is not my responsibility, although it has been mooted that it should be. If that were to happen, I should take the advice of my hon. Friend, who is arguably one of the most knowledgeable hon. Members on matters to do with racing.

Mr. Denis Howell: I should like, in accordance with the customs of the House, to welcome the new Minister at his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, even though we have been waiting 10 months. That is a remarkable period of gestation. As far as I can see, no new policies or initiatives have emanated. Is the Minister still in training? When will he be ready to take the field? There are many issues on which we need his advice, such as the place of team games and swimming in the school curriculum, which was discounted by the Secretary of State, and the publication of the report on youth policy on sport, for which we have been waiting three years. Most important of all—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) just said, this is the first time we have had sports questions since the Minister was appointed.

Mr. Howell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your defence of sport as well as of the House.
As the Minister believes that his Government have a better record than that of the Labour Government who, he will recall, provided financial assistance to stage the World cup and the Commonwealth games in this country, can he tell us when his Government will do anything to assist Sheffield with the world student games or Manchester with the Olympic bid? What has he got to tell us on those matters?

Mr. Atkins: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise me for not answering a question. In

case he has not noticed, hon. Members are required to ask questions before I can answer them. The hon. Member for Vauxhall, who tabled an early-day motion criticising me for not answering questions, has only just asked me her first question. I suggest that before levelling criticism, the right hon. Gentleman should look at the beam in his own eye.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government had not spent a lot of money. I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his former incarnation as Chancellor of the Exchequer, found about £100 million for football alone. That demonstrates more commitment than the right hon. Gentleman has shown since he has been shadowing me.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Was it a point of order about that matter?

Mr. Bennett: Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that there is now a ballot for questions and that it is an insult to any hon. Member to suggest——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter can arise as a point of order after Question Time.

Standard Assessment Tests

Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of introducing standard assessment tests.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The testing of seven-year-olds in the core subjects started immediately after the Easter holiday. Teachers have worked hard and well on the tests. The evidence so far suggests that the exercise is going reasonably well in most schools. I will, of course, consider the experience of this year before deciding the precise form of the tests for the next year.

Mr. Wilshire: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that union and Labour opposition to the standard assessment tests is not borne out by talking to teachers and parents? I recently visited 34 of the 36 schools in my constituency and heard universal support for the principle but concern about the detail. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the detail has been organised by teachers and not by politicians? Does he agree that testing has the support of teachers and parents, which contrasts with Labour's hostility to testing and its commitment to mediocrity for all?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are two clear issues, which he rightly distinguishes. One is the principle of whether to test seven-year-olds on their progress through the curriculum. There is widespread support for that among the teaching professions and parents. There is even bipartisan support in the House. The second issue is the exact form of the tests, which I should wish to consider in the light of the experience of classroom teachers this year. The form of the tests had been devised by the School Examinations and Assessment Council, appointed by me, which took a lot of trouble in devising child-friendly tests in response to pressures from parents and others. We have to ensure that the tests continue to be child friendly, that they do not put stress on


the children, that I they are reasonably straightforward and manageable and that they produce clear results as they evolve.

Science Funding

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase funding for science.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): The size of the science budget for 1992–93 will be considered in the forthcoming public expenditure survey.

Mr. Strang: Do the Government now appreciate that there is a science crisis? Does the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology confirm what scientists and Opposition Members have been saying for months? Surely the Minister is aware that decisions are being taken to halt research programmes, to disband research teams and to scrap expensive equipment and facilities. That will do real damage to Britain's science base unless the Government announce an additional allocation of funds to research councils for this year.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman totally fails to do justice to the outstanding quality of British science, which is highly regarded internationally. We are committed to maintaining an internationally competitive research base through the higher education institutions and the research councils. We are considering the important and interesting report of the House of Lords Select Committee and shall respond to it formally in due course. I would only comment now that the noble Lords explicitly said that they would like the research councils to have flexible budgets
without recourse to invidious choices.
It is tempting but illusory to suppose that life can be nothing but flexibility with no invidious choices.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q 1. Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. McFall: "It ain't working, but it's really hurting" is what one of my constituents told me in Dumbarton high street last Saturday. After a lifetime of work, at the age of 54 he now finds himself made redundant. When I next meet my constituent, can I tell him that the Prime Minister echoes the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that my constituent's tragedy and that of the hundreds of thousands who will surely follow in the coming months is a price well worth paying, or will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunhity to add substance to his new caring image by dissociating himself completely from the Chancellor's remarks?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has no monopoly of concern about unemployment. It is shared by every Conservative Member as well. It is precisely because we care about the impact of unemployment that we are

determined to remove its cause—which, predominantly, is inflation—and we are now making substantial progress with that. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about unemployment—I return to the point that the Opposition have ducked on every occasion—may I say that the minimum wage proposal will put many people out of work.

Mr. Ashby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ashby: In view of the recent spate of horrific incidents involving certain breeds of dogs, do the Government intend doing anything about that and, if so, what?

The Prime Minister: Everyone will have been shaken by the attacks during the past few weeks, particularly the horrific attack on Rucksana Khan at the weekend. I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and we are persuaded that urgent action must be taken. From midnight tonight, the import of dogs bred for fighting, such as the American pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa, will be banned. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will wish to make a statement to the House tomorrow setting out further action to deal with the problem. But it is clear that such dogs have no place in our homes.

Mr. Kinnock: I strongly support what the Prime Minister just said about fighting dogs.
If, as the Prime Minister insists, hospital trusts are not outside the national health service, why does he refuse to allow people to have a vote on the future of their local hospital?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support on the subject of dogs. It if comes to legislation, which it may well do after my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement tomorrow, I hope that his support will hold good. It is a matter that the whole country will be keen to see brought to a conclusion at an early stage.
On the subject of the health reforms, the right hon. Gentleman is aware, for he has clearly heard what has been said by many people in the health service in recent days, that he was wrong about health care outside the national health service. [Interruption.] Health trusts are outside the bureaucracy of much of the national health service, but they remain within the national health service. They will treat NHS patients. That is the position now and it will remain the position in the future.

Mr. Kinnock: What we are hearing, Mr. Speaker, is the hysteria of defeat. The Prime Minister does not appear to understand his own legislation. The trusts are not owned by the national health service. They can buy and sell, hire and fire and make contract deals without regard to the national health service. They are not part of a national health service. [Interruption.] That is the big truth and the Prime Minister should face it.

The Prime Minister: There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear because they know they have been wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has now been told by sufficient people who are professionals in the national


health service that trusts are part of the national health service. If he is not prepared to correct the mischief that he and his party enunciated last week, that is a matter for them, but the whole country knows that he is wrong and that trusts are part of the national health service.

Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of listening, the Prime Minister should hear what was said in Monmouth last Thursday. The people of Monmouth spoke. The right hon. Gentleman and his party were beaten fair and square, so why does he not listen to them and stop the second wave?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and his candidate won the Monmouth by-election, and I congratulate the candidate on so doing, but I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the accuracy of the campaign that was run on that occasion. The Monmouth literature was deceptive and untruthful, because
self-governing hospitals continue to fulfil the crucial criterion of being a part of the NHS: they provide, free of charge, health care that is funded by the taxpayer's contributions. What they have opted out of is the central bureaucracy of the NHS".
Those are not my words; they are the words in a leading article in The Independent. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is true.

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend will have noted that the dictator of Ethiopia appears to have left the country. Will he seize the initiative now and instruct our representative there to make immediate contact with the successor Administration to find out how we can help to lead the country towards democracy? Britain liberated Ethiopia from the Italians in the second world war. We now have a chance to lead the country towards democracy.

The Prime Minister: President Mengistu's resignation this morning is welcome. We hope that it will facilitate the peace process and enhance donors' ability to help those in need in Ethiopia—a matter of considerable importance to us all. I urge both the Government and the opposition movements to take this opportunity to negotiate a lasting settlement of their differences and, above all, to put an end to the civil war from which Ethiopia has suffered for too long. We shall do what we can to help to bring that about.

Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: Does the motion about Europe signed by 105 of the Prime Minister's colleagues represent Government policy? The Prime Minister has often repeated the assertion that not this Parliament but a future Parliament must decide whether we should adopt a single currency. Is that assertion based on the belief that a future Parliament would contain more people who hold our view that Britain should take the lead in the development of Europe and its currency and fewer of the type of people who signed the motion?

The Prime Minister: We are increasingly taking the lead in the European Community. That will become more and more evident as month succeeds month. Discussion in the two intergovernmental conferences is still at an early stage and negotiations will continue throughout the rest of this year. The Luxembourg paper that is identified in the

early-day motion is but one part of that negotiation. The early-day motion rightly identifies elements in the paper that need to be changed, and will be changed, before the negotiation is complete.

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the health service reforms are already working well—[Interruption.]—and gaining the support of most hospital staff throughout the country? Is he aware that this year Exeter health authority will purchase some 200 hip and knee operations from the London hospitals? That will reduce waiting lists and help the London hospitals. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend continue to champion the rights of the patients, in contrast to the Labour party, which champions bureaucracy and the trade unions?

The Prime Minister: Indeed, I will, for that is the basis of the reforms. I welcome the example provided by my hon. Friend of a health authority using the opportunity of the reforms to secure better and, in many cases, speedier treatment for patients in the local area. Similar improvements are evident in many parts of the country for those who wish to look and see.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I take the Prime Minister's mind back to his meetings with Ulster Unionist leaders last week? [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members should listen. Will the Prime Minister confirm that there has been no change in the basis of the discussions between the constitutional parties in the Province as a consequence of his meeting with those two Ulster Unionist leaders?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that there has been no change in the nature of the discussions. As we speak, there has been no session of the talks yet. Discussions are continuing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the hope that the talks can soon begin. For the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that all concerned will speedily find a basis on which the talks can go ahead.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the polytechnics were given control of their own affairs —[Interruption.]—they have recruited a further 36,000 students? Now that colleges of further education have been given the same freedom, what does my right hon. Friend think will be the result?

The Prime Minister: From what I could hear of my hon. Friend's question over the hubbub, I think that he was commending the way in which the polytechnics have flourished since they were given their independence. That is certainly the case. Any director of a polytechnic will confirm that to anyone who seeks the information.

Miss Lestor: Referring to what the Prime Minister said about the economic consequences of the minimum wage, we do not have a minimum wage in Eccles or, indeed,


anywhere else, yet unemployment increased in Eccles by 100 between last month and this month. Can the Prime Minister explain why that is happening?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Lady reads the Fabian pamphlet, which is about to be published, which lists a substantial number of jobs that would be lost if a minimum wage were introduced. There is no way in which the hon. Lady can get away by wriggling. The minimum wage proposals will cost jobs and it is Labour party policy to destroy those jobs.

Mr. David Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: My constituents in Basildon—indeed, people throughout the country—would be grateful if my right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government, in their spending plans, are able to distinguish between overriding priorities, key priorities, top priorities and urgent priorities. Opposition Members certainly cannot. [Laughter.]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a point that is so telling that it has even caught the imagination of the Opposition. Our priorities are indeed clear, but that is certainly not the case with the Labour party. Labour's campaign co-ordinator has said that education is a first priority; the overseas aid spokesman has said that aid is a top priority; the shadow Chancellor has said that manufacturing industry is a key priority; and just this morning it happened again. Asked for Labour's plan about "Son of the GLC", the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, "It's a first-term commitment." [Interruption.] I shall wait until Opposition Members are silent.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to wait until the Opposition listen. The reality is that their programme does not add up. It never has, and it never will. It all points towards higher taxation, and that is what we should get.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

William Edward Huw Edwards Esq, for Monmouth.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Madden: I wish to raise a point of order of which I gave you notice.

Mr. Speaker: But this occurred last Tuesday.

Mr. Madden: I gave notice to the Secretary of State for Health also.
On 14 May I asked the Secretary of State for Health about the 300 redundancies to take place at Bradford health trust. In reply he said:
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that there will be 300 redundancies in the trust. There is no question of that"—[Official Report, 14 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 146.]
I have since received, in a plain brown envelope, the business plan for Bradford health trust, paragraph 1.5 of which states——

Mr. Speaker: Order. With the greatest respect, I must stop the hon. Gentleman here. He intimated to me that he wanted to refer to a matter which first arose at Question Time last Tuesday—a week ago. I hope that he will not mind my reminding him that I replied that we could not allow points of order in connection with something that had happened a week before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because answers to questions are not my responsibility.

Mr. Madden: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I passed a note to your Secretary, Mr. Speaker, explaining that I wished to refer to the paragraph of the business plan that says:
changes in the level and style of service, together with the results of competitive tendering will lead to a reduction in the workforce of about 200 during 1991"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has heard me say, and the whole House knows, that I cannot be held responsible for answers to questions. This is not a matter of order for me. [Interruption.] Will the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench please allow me to deal with the matter? I am not responsible for answers. The hon. Gentleman must find other ways of taking up the matter with the Government. It is a matter for the Government, not for me.

Mr. Madden: I advised the Secretary of State for Health that I intended to raise the matter, Sir. It seems that, whoever is attempting to conceal the truth about health care, it is not my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) or the Labour party; it is the Secretary of State for Health, the Conservative party and the Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will always support the occupant of the Chair in this matter. Replies to questions are not a matter for the Chair and points of order in connection with them waste a great deal of time. We have enormous pressures today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] We certainly have; I know.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a separate point of order, which I believe falls within your remit, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is urgent. Within the past half

hour I have been to the Table Office to table questions on national health trusts. The Clerks tell me that Ministers are keeping an open mind for a little while longer in accepting questions on trusts, but that, in a very few days' time, there will be no possibility of hon. Members' tabling questions on national health trusts. That leads to enormous confusion, Mr. Speaker. Do we have the right to ask questions about national health trusts or do we not?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to that question—and the answer that the hon. Gentleman received from the Table Office—is yes.

Dr. John Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it cannot be acceptable for Ministers to refuse to take questions about what is happening in opted-out hospitals, which, we are assured, are still in the national health service. Are we really to accept the argument—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not a point of order."] It is a point of order. Are we really to be told, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members on both sides of the House —who I assume want to be assured that their constituents are getting proper and fair treatment in the national health service—are no longer to be allowed to table parliamentary questions about it?

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that the Table Office is accepting questions.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on an important matter which will need to be resolved very shortly. It is clear from today's proceedings that the national health service will continue to be a matter of debate and disagreement in the House. You will be aware from the Register of Members' Interests that approximately one third of Opposition Members are sponsored by unions associated with the national health service. I seek your ruling, Sir, on whether those hon. Members—whether in speeches, points of order or questions—should declare their interest so that we can tell whether they are acting in the interests of patients or porters.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The rules remain the same. It is not our convention to declare an interest at Question Time; it is our convention to declare an interest during debate.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that questions on opted-out trusts could be tabled in the Table Office. Will we be able to table such questions after the recess, or will we be denied our parliamentary rights by Ministers opting out of their responsibility?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who originally raised this point, raised a hypothetical question. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he had been told that something might happen in the future. I cannot tell what will happen in the future. I can tell the House what is happening now, and I have said that those questions will be accepted by the Table Office.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I believe that this is a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, because it affects the powers of the House. We have in this House, through Acts of Parliament, surrendered certain powers to European institutions. Since that time, it seems that further powers are being sought by stealth. Neither you


nor, I am sure, any hon. Member could have imagined at the time of our passing the Single European Act that we were surrendering to European institutions powers over tobacco advertising. Should it come about through majority voting that such legislation was foisted upon this country, would it be incumbent upon the House to facilitate the passing of such legislation?

Mr. Speaker: This is another thing that might happen in the future. I cannot answer that question now.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just heard the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) refer to the fact that some of my hon. Friends are sponsored by COHSE and NUPE. I think that he had the figure wrong, but that is by the way. Will you, since you are are in charge ultimately of the register, make it clear that it would be a good idea if in future another item were registered—how many Tory Members have private health care?

Mr. Dave Nellist: On two separate points of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let us have one, please; I think that that is enough for me. [Interruption.] Order. I am trying to help the hon. Member. I understand that it is the wish of the House to get on with its business rather rapidly today. In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate and the fact that the major debate ends at 11.30 pm it will not be possible for me to call all hon. Members who wish to speak in that debate if I have points of order now.

Mr. Nellist: I am grateful for that information, Mr. Speaker.
On my point of order, in reply to two previous points of order you said that a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) was in the past and therefore it was too late to raise it now, and that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was in the future and therefore hypothetical. If it is put to you as a point of order that the Table Office has said that there is now doubt about whether hon. Members will be able to ask questions about national health trusts, should you not at least reassure us that you will investigate what statements have been made and report to us tomorrow?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I will deal with all these points of order together. I think that will be quicker.

Mr. Sheerman: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was merely seeking guidance so that hon. Members might know whether they will be allowed to carry on asking questions about national health trusts. We were told only 15 minutes ago that our ability to ask questions was very soon to be halted by the Government. Does that mean another week, another month or another two months?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member had an informal discussion with a Clerk in the Table Office. I have not had that opportunity, which I certainly intend to have when I can leave the Chair.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just been to the Table Office, because I would have been as dismayed as Opposition Members if indeed we were not allowed to table questions about national health service trust hospitals. The Table Office has confirmed to me that it is perfectly happy to accept all questions about NHS trusts. Furthermore, it has confirmed that no one—no Minister and no official from the Department of Health—has suggested or intimated an unwillingness to answer questions.

Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it was Mark Twain who spoke about "Lies, lies and more damned lies." Are we not hearing another distortion from Labour Members in respect of——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member was in his place yesterday, but I said that the word that he has used is not one that I wish to hear in the Chamber.

Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising from the quarter of an hour of questions within points of order is a serious principle. We have had a quarter of an hour's debate, initiated by the Labour party, in prime time on national health service trusts. Is not that an abuse of the procedures of the House by the party that wants to put porters before patients?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that that helps much. Points of order have been made from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Sir Gerard Neale: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a worthy point to remind anyone who is following our exchanges that, irrespective of whether the trusts continue in the instances to which reference has been made, all the patients treated under them will be treated under the national health service?

Mr. Speaker: These are matters of political controversy and are not points of order for the Chair. We should now get on with the business.

BILL PRESENTED

DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS ACT 1976 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Bob Cryer, supported by Mr. John Battle, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. John Cummings, presented a Bill to add tosa dogs and pit bull terriers to the Schedule to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

Education (Audit Commission and Abolition of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools)

Mr. Bob Dunn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools and to transfer its functions and responsibilities to the Audit Commission; and for connected purposes.
The House will be well aware that the history of education since the 19th century has run alongside the development of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools. For more than 150 years the inspectorate has sought to give impartial and independent advice to successive Department of Education and Science Ministers on changes, projects, policies and developments in maintained education. Throughout that period its impartial and independent role has been carried out satisfactorily. It is no coincidence that the only area of the education service that has gone without reform is the inspectorate. Largely, its role continues to be one of advice and caution in addition to publishing reports and giving advice to successive Ministers.
Although the inspectorate has become impartial and independent, it has become increasingly irrelevant to the means by which modern education is measured and adjudicated upon as a result of the changes that have taken place in the service. Indeed, it has become a self-perpetuating oligarchy whose function has been to give generalised statements on the position of maintained education in such a way as to cause doubt and concern without providing the means by which improvement can be made. For example, the inspectorate says that a third of our children could do better in a state school—that in itself is a statement of disruption—without providing the means by which improvements could be made.
Every activity that we have undertaken in the past 10 years has been designed to take responsibility down the line to individual schools and to require schools to be more open about the type of education, the quality of education and the standard of education that is reached within them. Yet the one arm of activity open to government is still dealing in a generalised and unfocused way with the provision of activity in the state system.
The House might have seen an answer to a written question tabled by me from the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science on 16 May. I asked
the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of (a) school-related and (b) non school-related reports published by Her Majesty's inspectorate in each of the last two years …".
The Minister's answer was:
In 1988–89, 403 inspection reports were published of which 231 were related to schools. In 1989–90, 358 reports were published, of which 144 were school-related."—[Official Report, 16 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 222.]
While accepting that those that relate to individual schools might well have been of use to the parents, governors and teachers in those schools, I argue that the remainder of the reports have opened up some doubts about the effectiveness of that type of reporting. Indeed, when the inspectorate publishes a report on the teaching of physics or English in the primary phase, for example, I wonder how much of that permeates down to the level of

the school. Such reports only offer reading and reporting matter for specialised institutes for education in some of our lesser universities.
I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House share my view that we have reached the point when it is right to demand a change. The Secretary of State has announced such a policy and I believe that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) also has strong views about the future role of the inspectorate. Although he and I might disagree about the objectives behind our impulses on this matter, there is no doubt that it is a common shared belief that the inspectorate can no longer continue for the next 10 or 20 years in the way that it has done.
I welcome that admission and declaration that probably all parties represented in the House seek to bring about change in the role, responsibility and functions of the inspectorate.
My Bill proposes to abolish the inspectorate as it stands and to transfer its functions and responsibilities to the Audit Commission, which would then have a responsibility to set up an educational audit commission with more tightly focused terms of reference to measure implementation and results stemming from the Education Reform Act 1988 and to evaluate the cost effectiveness of many of the local initiatives which might be spread across the nation as good practice.
The second change proposed by my Bill is to bring in fresh people from outside the world of education to act as inspectors so as to maximise input into the inspectorate, while getting a better and broader view from those who have had experience of commerce, education, industry, politics and possibly the church, who could comment on the products of our education system.
While not condemning the inspectorate for past work, I believe that the House accepts that there has to be a change in its focus. My idea of an educational audit commission would be one way of achieving that.
The Bill ought to go into the parliamentary process. I believe that it commands support from both sides of the Chamber. I accept that there are those who question my motives, which are not political and do not stem from any consideration except five years as a schools Minister, a number of years as a school governor and from being a taxpayer. We need to get a better deal from the inspectorate than we have had in the past. I hope that the House will accept my Bill as a declaration of intent for reform to better times for the inspectorate.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to oppose the Bill?

Hon. Members: Reactionary!

Mr. Spearing: I may be a reactionary, but I share the experience of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). We have both been subject, in different ways, to the strictures of Her Majesty's inspectors. I was a teacher for some 14 years and the hon. Member was a Minister for five years. Perhaps he is, therefore, responsible to some extent for the state of the education system, which the inspectors have successively reported to the public and this House. The hon. Gentleman, the Conservative party and the Government must take some responsibility for that.
I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's view that some evolutionary development may be desirable within Her Majesty's inspectorate. Perhaps the role of HMIs could be adjusted along the lines advocated by the Labour party. There is some concern in education circles that, although, under the Education Act 1944, Her Majesty's inspectors must evaluate, inspect and report, they also fulfil functions in relation to best practice. There is not always full agreement about best practice or about whether, if it works in one place, it will work in another. Several newspaper articles have discussed that subject recently.
The hon. Member for Dartford is not asking for evolution, development or even for reform; he is asking for abolition, which is a quite different matter. Her Majesty's inspectors were established by the Privy Council long before so-called maintained education under the Education Act 1870 was dreamt of. They report to the nation on behalf of the tax-paying public, such as the hon. Gentleman and I, on the general results obtained from that wholesale expenditure of moneys which is a right and proper function. Indeed, if that function were not fulfilled the hon. Member for Dartford and his hon. Friends would be the first to say that it should be fulfilled under section 77 of the 1944 Act.
The hon. Member for Dartford wants not only to abolish a corps of ladies and gentlemen who, whatever their views on certain teaching methods, have centuries of experience and skill to contribute for the benefit of the country and a certain status in the minds of most professional teachers and administrators; he wants to transfer it to the Audit Commission, which is not beyond controversy itself. The Audit Commission is responsible for local government expenditure, but the hon. Gentleman does not want local government to administer sixth Form colleges and many aspects of education hitherto looked at by the inspectors. The Audit Commission is concerned with expenditure, economy, efficiency and effectiveness —and therefore with the perceived value of expenditure.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that educational results are not simply a commodity. It is clear that they are in demand, but they cannot be measured like substances such as wood, stone, cheese, bacon or butter, which can be sold in a market and precisely evaluated, stored and moved around. Probably the most dedicated and best professional teaching and the most effective learning take place in schools with special difficulties. Some may perceive virtually no results of that. However, I have had pupils in my charge when a teacher has said to me, with perhaps a bit of exaggeration, "What is the use, Mr. Spearing? We teach them to read in the term time and they forget in the holidays". What satisfaction can be gained even with enormous expenditure of emotional and professional effort?
I am not saying that this should not happen, but in education value for money cannot be considered in the same way as even some of the more basic functions of local government. Yet the hon. Member for Dartford wishes to hand over Her Majesty's inspectors of schools to the tender mercies of organisations created by the Government in local government legislation at the beginning of the 1980s. He forgets that education is not entirely a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. It is not a commodity with which one can deal precisely and scientifically.
Her Majesty's inspectors belong to Her Majesty. There is some debate in education circles about what that means precisely. Her Majesty, through the Privy Council that founded the inspectorate, is exercising some degree of independence from the Executive, the Secretary of State for Education and the Ministers of the day, the professions, local authorities, professional associations and those important but under-noted people, principals of colleges of education and educational academics. The inspectors are independent from all those people. They go, see, speak and make reports on which they can be subjected to questioning.
We all know that in the past 10 years education has undergone rapid change. My noble Friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff precipitated a debate on the subject about 12 years ago in a celebrated speech at Oxford. He concluded the speech by saying:
What a wise parent would wish for their children so the nation should wish for all its children.
That is the watchword of Her Majesty's inspectorate.
Long may it remain so. I beg to oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 136.

Division No. 149]
[4.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Irvine, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Jessel, Toby


Alexander, Richard
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Atkinson, David
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Batiste, Spencer
Kilfedder, James


Beggs, Roy
Knapman, Roger


Bitten, Rt Hon John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Malins, Humfrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Marland, Paul


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bowis, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Moate, Roger


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Browne, John (Winchester)
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Budgen, Nicholas
Norris, Steve


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Conway, Derek
Pawsey, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Couchman, James
Powell, William (Corby)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Dover, Den
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Dunn, Bob
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Durant, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Shelton, Sir William


Fookes, Dame Janet
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gale, Roger
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gardiner, Sir George
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hannam, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Thorne, Neil


Hayward, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hill, James
Viggers, Peter


Holt, Richard
Walden, George


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Warren, Kenneth


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Watts, John


Hunter, Andrew
Wheeler, Sir John






Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Mrs. Marion Roe and Mr. John Marshall.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Allen, Graham
Lambie, David


Alton, David
Lamond, James


Anderson, Donald
Livsey, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Armstrong, Hilary
Loyden, Eddie


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Ashton, Joe
McKelvey, William


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McMaster, Gordon


Barron, Kevin
McNamara, Kevin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Madden, Max


Beith, A. J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bellotti, David
Marek, Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Benton, Joseph
Martlew, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Maxton, John


Boateng, Paul
Meale, Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Michael, Alun


Boyes, Roland
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Bradley, Keith
Morgan, Rhodri


Buckley, George J.
Morley, Elliot


Caborn, Richard
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mullin, Chris


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Murphy, Paul


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Nellist, Dave


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cohen, Harry
O'Brien, William


Corbett, Robin
O'Neill, Martin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Crowther, Stan
Parry, Robert


Cummings, John
Patchett, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pike, Peter L.


Dalyell, Tam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Primarolo, Dawn


Duffy, A. E. P.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Radice, Giles


Dykes, Hugh
Randall, Stuart


Eadie, Alexander
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Edwards, Huw
Reid, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Richardson, Jo


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Robertson, George


Fatchett, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fearn, Ronald
Ruddock, Joan


Flynn, Paul
Salmond, Alex


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Fyfe, Maria
Sheerman, Barry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Short, Clare


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Soley, Clive


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Spearing, Nigel


Hain, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Hardy, Peter
Straw, Jack


Harman, Ms Harriet
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Haynes, Frank
Turner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hood, Jimmy
Wigley, Dafydd


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Howells, Geraint
Winnick, David


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. John Battle and


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill

Lords amendments considered

Clause 1

INTRODUCTION OF DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, at end insert "a community care supplement"

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments: No. 2, in page 3, line 6, at end insert
, to any one of which may be added a community care supplement payable out of the National Insurance Fund.
The Government's motion to disagree with the amendment.
No. 3, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
(5A) The weekly rate of the community care supplement shall depend on the individual circumstances of a severely disabled person. In particular it shall depend on the extent to which he is severely restricted in his ability to perform normal personal care and domestic tasks because of his disablement, on the extent of his need for help, attention or supervision from another person, on the cost of securing the required help, attention or supervision, and on such other factors as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

(5B) For the purposes of subsection (3) above—

(a)a community care supplement shall not be payable in addition to a payment from the Independent Living Fund;
(b)providing his circumstances qualify him for a payment from the Independent Living Fund, a community care supplement shall be payable to a severely disabled person in lieu of such a payment when the payment ceases on the expiry of the life of the Independent Living Fund Trust on or before 8 June 1993; and
(c)payment of the community care supplement shall be disregarded for the purposes of assessing housing benefit and community charge benefit."
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 3, in line 8, after 'supervision', insert
`on the need for a special diet'.
The Government's motion to disagree with the amendment.

Mr. Scott: I am conscious, in moving the motion, that the amendments bring us to an issue to which both sides of the House attach much importance—the position of the most severely disabled members of our community. I have considered, and in most cases listened with much care, to speeches made in debates in the House and in another place. I am sure that the House will want me to concentrate on the substance of the issues rather than to raise detailed objections to the amendments.
I do not intend to detain the House by focusing on details, other than to make two points: first, the Lords amendments for the creation of a community care supplement within disability living allowance are, as I shall seek to convince the House, unworkable in practice.
Secondly, it must be perverse to provide, as one amendment does, for the community care supplement to be paid from the national insurance fund, when the rest of the benefit, of which it is supposed to be a part, is paid from general taxation. I well understand that that was used as a device to raise the subject properly for debate and I am happy that it gives me an opportunity to explain where the Government stand.
I do not think that I am oversimplifying matters by saying that at each stage in our discussions of this issue during the Bill's passage two main points have been made. First, there was some pressure on the Government to devise a regulatory statutory replacement for the independent living fund from 1993. Secondly, there has been genuine concern that we should take the opportunity to clarify as soon as possible what the arrangements will be for people who are already getting support from the independent living fund. I very much understand that concern and I shall come back to it in a moment.
However, let me deal first with the desire to see a regulated benefits system replace the independent living fund. I have to say to right hon. and hon. Opposition Members who take a close interest in such matters that I do not believe that even the best legal skills that I could deploy to draft a set of regulations would come close to delivering the pattern of help provided now by the independent living fund. To "tack on" a community care supplement to a benefit on which we expect to have to make about 20,000 decisions a week would be a recipe for abandoning any serious attempt to go into the needs of individual disabled people in depth in order to arrive at a package that meets those needs.
I know that Opposition Members who have been urging the introduction of a regulated system do so with the best of intentions and motives, but we must recognise that the independent living fund has been more effective in delivering help where it is needed than was the system that it replaced. We must bear it in mind that that system was regulated statutory help with the costs of domestic assistance. At the risk of labouring the point, it clearly did not get to as many people, or as effectively, as those who are now getting help from the independent living fund.
I reiterate the point that I made in Committee and on Report—benefits that are supposedly designed to cater for every contingency end up not being understood let alone claimed by many of those at whom they are aimed. I can do no better than to quote Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care in which he said:
Our social security system is essentially designed to provide a standard range of benefits for large numbers of people against objective tests of entitlement. It is not an appropriate system for the direct provision of individually tailored packages of support, within a finite community care programme.
Sir Roy also rightly argued that if we were to make a successful reality of our aim, which I am sure is shared in all quarters, of enabling people to live in the community, we need to give primary responsibility for the assessment of need and for the planning and delivery of care packages to a single authority.
I remain convinced that our community care strategy is the right approach to meeting the needs of all disabled people, including the most severely disabled. Local social services authorities are now drawing up plans for April 1993. The organisations that represent disabled people now have the opportunity to ensure that local services match local needs.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister refers to a strategy for community care, but has he consulted the organisations of or for people with disabilities, such as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, Mencap and others? Has he taken their views on board and, if so, how does he respond to their worries about cash limits?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows that ministerial responsibility for the introduction in due course of community care belongs to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health. We have received a number of representations about the arrangements that will succeed the independent living fund, but local authorities are already working on their plans for the introduction of community care. They have a responsibility to put their plans to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department. There is no better time for organisations of or for disabled people to begin to make clear their views about the type of packages that will be necessary in their individual localities or, more generally, across the country than when the local authorities are working out their plans. Disabled people, their carers and the organisations with which they are involved should play a major part in the designing of the services that will need to be delivered to disabled people after the introduction of community care in 1993.
The independent living fund has done a splendid job since its inception. I pay the warmest possible tribute to the trustees, the director and the staff who have been involved in all its activities. Their workload and the way in which they have tackled it have been far in excess of what was envisaged when the independent living fund was set up. It is right that not only I as the Minister, but the whole House should pay the warmest tribute to the trustees, the director and the staff for the way in which they have responded to the demands that have been placed on them.
A centrally run organisation such as the ILF could not hope in the long run to help all the severely disabled people who seek help to enable them to live independently in the community. The ILF has successfully primed the pump. It has fulfilled an invaluable role in proving that, with the right support and assistance, even severely disabled people can be enabled to live with independence and dignity in the community. From April 1993, it is right that the baton should pass to local authorities and that they should carry on and extend the good work of designing and providing packages of care for many more people than a central fund could ever hope to maintain.
The scale of the work involved brings me to the second main concern that has been raised in our recent discussions. The point has been made—I freely acknowledge its force—that some local authorities, given what else they have on their plates, will find it genuinely difficult to take on "at a stroke", to coin a phrase, from the ILF the several thousand people for whom it has worked out individually tailored care packages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and other hon. Members whose expertise on these matters is well known made the case especially effectively on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said that uncertainty about future payments from the fund was already causing disruption because disabled people could not make long-term care arrangements when they did not


know whether their payments would continue. The point is well made and I hope that the House will agree that it has been well taken.
Several hon. Members of all parties in both Houses have expressed the view that it was a question not solely of ensuring that the transitional arrangements met the needs of the people whom the ILF helps, but of ensuring that those people are reassured early about their future. I recognise that it is important that we should now end any further uncertainty.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to raise a point of order further to the points of order raised at 3.30 pm. It was alleged that after the recess it would no longer be possible for questions to be tabled about national trust hospitals. I have checked with the office of the Leader of the House and I have it on its authority that that is not the case, that normal rules apply and that national trust hospitals will be the subject of questions. Such questions can be tabled. Was not the allegation just another fabrication by the Labour party on the subject?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know about that. If the hon. Gentleman was here, he will know that the points of order, which took place some time ago, were hypothetical. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have not had the advantage of leaving the Chamber to find out about the matter. If what he has said is true, I welcome it. We do not need to hear any more about it now.

Mr. Scott: This must be the first occasion for a long time on which a Minister has been interrupted by a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the course of a debate. However, I recognise the importance of the point.
It is important that we should now end any further uncertainty. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members of all parties will welcome the proposals that I am about to announce.
I have concluded that the best way in which to give reassurance to existing beneficiaries of the independent living fund is to retain quite separate arrangements for that group. We shall not, therefore, expect local authorities to take over the role of providing for people who are receiving money from the ILF at the time at which the wider community care arrangements are introduced. Incidentally, even Opposition Members may recall that the life of the trust under which the ILF was established expires in June 1993—a few weeks after the planned introduction of the Government's community care proposals.
We will instead put in place a successor body to the ILF which will take on all existing beneficiaries and make cash payments——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I wish to thank him for bringing our anxieties to an end so swiftly. We have had many representations on this and we are most grateful to him.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister clarify what he meant by "a few weeks"? I understand that the Government's proposals for the community care section of their Act are to be introduced at the beginning of April 1993. If not, the present situation would continue until

June and we would be talking about three months, not a few weeks. Have the Government changed their plans for the implementation of their Act?

Mr. Scott: We can query whether it will be a couple of months or a few weeks, but the hon. Gentleman has the facts exactly right. The terms of the trust expire in June 1993 and the arrangements for community care come into effect at the beginning of April 1993.
Let me reiterate and put clearly on the record the arrangements, then I shall give way to any hon. Member who wishes to question me. We intend to put in place a successor body to the ILF which will take on all existing beneficiaries and make cash payments to them in the same way as the ILF does now. The details of that body will have to be worked out during the coming months, but the principles are clear—the successor body will function in the same way as the ILF. It will be able to look in depth at the circumstances and needs of the people whom it will inherit from the ILF and to judge the most appropriate way of meeting those needs. The presumption at the outset will be that the new body will usually pay the same cash amounts to people as they had been getting the week before, but it will be possible for people whose circumstances then become worse to obtain more money to enable them to carry on living in the community.
I hope that that will come as welcome news to the more than 7,700 people who currently obtain help from the ILF. Hon. Members who follow these matters with care and, I hope with sympathy will know that in each year of the ILF's life to date we have given substantial extra sums so that new claimants could be helped. Funding in 1991–92 is more than 10 times the level at which it was when we set out in 1988–89 and more than 20 times the amount that the old supplementary benefit system domestic system addition ever provided. That commitment will continue during the 1992–93 financial year so that there will be room in the ILF's budget not only to continue helping all existing beneficiaries but to carry on admitting new people during the year.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I have been following the Minister carefully. Am I right to understand that from 1993 onwards there will be a twin-track situation with one group of people benefiting under the successor body and obtaining increased levels of support, whereas people with identical needs and circumstances will not be able to obtain any benefit under that body because those circumstances arose after mid-1993? Is not that a formula for uncertainty and misunderstanding? Will not some people be looking over their shoulders at friends and neighbours who will be obtaining assistance on which they are missing out? Surely that cannot be a stable formula for the future.

Mr. Scott: I shall not reiterate the argument that I have already deployed because I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge it. As the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, in April 1993 it is planned to move to a wholly new arrangement for care in the community which will apply to residential care in nursing homes and to decisions made about care packages in different localities. He will recall that when Sir Roy Griffiths studied these matters he came to the conclusion that I have already outlined, that local authorities should look at the individual needs of not just disabled people but elderly people to decide what care package was most relevant to


their needs, whether that involved institutional care or care in the community, and to devise appropriate arrangements.
That applies, too, to those who have been helped by the independent living fund but, appropriate though I think those new arrangements are and much though I support what Sir Roy Griffiths concluded, we came to the conclusion, after having studied the matter, that to ask local authorities to take on whatever the existing case load of the independent living fund is in April 1993, at the same time as they will be introducing the other more general arrangements for community care, would be too much and that it made sense—not least to meet the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter—in order to put at rest the minds of those who are receiving help from the independent living fund to say that this successor body would continue the payments that are now being made and that it would also, where conditions had deteriorated but people could still live in the community, meet any additional costs that may arise.
I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will see that point. His views on community care may differ from those of the Government, but that will be the Government's policy in April 1993. I have sought to find the most satisfactory arrangements to meet the needs of those who will be the beneficiaries of the independent living fund then and to make an early announcement about what the arrangements might be so that any uncertainties can be removed.

Sir Michael McNair Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend say from which budget the successor body will draw its finance?

Mr. Scott: These matters will be discussed by the Government, but I envisage that it will be part of the Department of Social Security's budget. We shall seek funds to ensure the position of the successor body to the independent living fund after April 1993.
My response today means that we shall be spending more next year than this and that we shall be ensuring that all those who currently receive cash help from the independent living fund will carry on receiving cash help after 1993. I hope that the measures that I have announced today will meet I he concerns in a far better way than the amendments that we are considering today. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It says in the press that this debate was delayed until today so that the Minister could attend a preview of the Chelsea flower show. That was a contest he won. If it is also true, as some people think, that he battled with the Treasury to avoid having to make the speech we have just heard, that was a contest he lost, and he must be ashamed of having been made to oppose the Lords amendments.

Miss Emma Nicholson: rose——

Mr. Morris: I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me at least to start my speech. I know that other hon. Members want to intervene in the debate but, as I continue my speech, I shall seek to give way.
This debate is crucially about choice for disabled people and achieving full control for them over their own lives.

The amendments will vouchsafe for people with disabilities the freedom of choice and independence they crave and which thousands of them now enjoy with help from the independent living fund. The right hon. Gentleman is said to take pride in the creation of the ILF. If it was his baby, he is now clothing himself, like Herod, in the ignominy of infanticide.
His commitments to existing recipients are simply not good enough. Thanks to this Government, we now see more bands of second-class disabled people than in "Son of Poll Tax". Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many people in the last 12 years have enjoyed some form of transitional protection which has disguised a creeping cut for them alongside massive cuts for others in identical situations?
The Minister has argued that, under the new community care arrangements, the ILF's role is best undertaken by local authorities. But unfortunately the new era of community care exists solely in the imagination of Ministers. Their disgraceful decision not to implement sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, thus tearing the heart out of that important Act, shows the Government in their true colours. The Minister for Health claims that the community care arrangements "reflect and amplify" sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act. This is a good description of these so-called "arrangements": they are son et lumiere without substance. They are a fantasy for which Tory Ministers know that they will not be called to account since, by 1 April 1993, they will have been swept from office.
Anyone who saw Margaret Tebbit talking to Terry Wogan will have admired her courage in building a new life after her terrible injuries. Her triumph over severe disability is an inspiring example of personal bravery. Perhaps Mrs. Tebbit's most significant statement, in terms of this debate, was that the independence she now prizes depends on two young New Zealanders who provide the personal assistance she needs. This level of support can be essential if the most severely disabled people are to lead normal lives. To some, but by no means all, it is provided by the ILF. These amendments enshrine the assistance it gives as a statutory right. That is what severely disabled people want. They need and ask the House for a statutory right to the assistance that they need.
I have some sympathy with the view that assessment should be locally based; but it is essential that the right to support must be made enforceable nationally. As all hon. Members know, the statutory rights provided by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 ultimately have to be enforced nationally if they are not to be infringed. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), when he was Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled, recognised this truth in his laudable decision to enforce the provision of telephones for housebound disabled people in Wandsworth under section 2(1)(h) of the Act. We want to see the same uniformity across the country in the provision of personal assistance services as in the administration of cash benefits for disabled people.
One of the ILF's key features is that the money it provides is paid direct to the disabled person, so that she or he has the power to hire the assistance she or he wants and arrange the work to suit her or his needs. This is the


formula which works so successfully in Denmark, Sweden and Finland; and the ILF has shown that it works equally well here.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of direct payments by local authorities was raised during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Despite expressing warm sympathy and even visiting local projects, health Ministers rejected Opposition amendments; but they promised further consideration before the Act came into force. This seems to have been an empty promise. In a reply to me on 10 May, the Minister for Health said that the Government had decided not to change the law
because of the difficulties in determining which clients would be eligible for direct payments and in controlling costs.
This is crazy. If the ILF can make satisfactory arrangements, why not local authorities? They have a legal duty to decide who needs help and for the Government, with their fetish for privatising local authority services, to say that it would be more difficult for councils to control costs is a rich argument indeed.
The reply of 10 May continued:
However, our guidance stresses the need for disabled people to be fully involved in decisions about the care which they need and points out that there is no reason why a disabled person who wants to have day-to-day management of his or her carers should not do so."—[Official Report, 10 May 1991; Vol.190, c. 608.]
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) put it very well in a letter to The Times on 9 May, when he said that, because, where help is financed by the ILF, disabled people are the employers, they are able to hire staff in whom they feel confidence. He went on to say that they
can arrange the sort of day-to-day flexibility which suits both parties and, therefore, create for themselves the sort of life which, for example, allows for an unexpected whole-day visit to the Department of Health to lobby for the continuation of such arrangements.
The hon. Member saw the problem as one of machinery; I see it simply as a psychological block on the part of health Ministers, which, if it is not removed, will turn all the right hon. Gentleman's promises for 1993 into hot air.
My hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment to draw attention to a particular group of people, many of whom are now terminally ill, whose problems Ministers in both Houses have been determined to sweep under the carpet. We have done this in order to warn the Government that they will not succeed in doing so, and because the daunting problems of the people of whom I shall speak exemplify those of countless other victims of the Government's so-called social security reforms of April 1988. I refer to people with AIDS, who, as I told Ministers from this Dispatch Box yesterday, are in many cases now literally dying for want of financial help from the Department of Social Security for the special diets that they so vitally need. If the right hon. Gentleman ever finds time to talk to colleagues in the other half of Richmond house, he will learn of their growing concern about the increase of HIV infection among the heterosexual population. Their PR offensive on this issue last Friday prompts one to ask why, if they are so concerned to limit the future death toll, they show such total unconcern about deaths that are happening now because of inability to afford special diets.
In Committee, I tried to make sense of the figure in the reports of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

on people who need special diets, but I received very little assistance from the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I had to complain to the Chairman that Ministers were apparently concealing vital information from the Committee. When totally out-argued, they developed a habit of referring to detailed secondary analysis from the OPCS reports. But even when I tabled a parliamentary question specifically asking for the data to be placed in the Library my request was ignored. The written answer is to be found at column 419 of the Official Report of 11 March.
I was referring to the secret data that had been mentioned in Committee. These secret data from the OPCS tapes will feature in the next debate on the amendments relating to mobility allowance, where Ministers have been floundering for years. In relation to people who need special diets, we start with the clear statement in the OPCS reports that the highest additional expenditure was associated with digestion disabilities. On the other hand, extra expenditure on food varied little between the severity categories. This last fact supports the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that many people who need a special diet will receive DLA. Of course they will, but it will be insufficient for their needs; and many others will not receive the allowance.
I think that it is worth recalling today some of the figures in various other parliamentary replies. On 21 January, I was told that
a quarter of those expected to qualify for the lower rate of the self-care component—some 60,000 people in all—need a special diet".—[Official Report, 21 January 1991; Vol. 184,c. 61.]
A later answer, on 20 March, revealed that, of the total of 240,000 eligible for the lower care component, only 140,000 were expected to receive that help. This shortfall of 40 per cent. is not something the right hon. Gentleman has greatly publicised. The figure of 60,000 will fall in practice to 35,000.
Also on 20 March, the right hon. Gentleman told me that
Something under 500,000 people below the age of 65 said that they needed a special diet
and that
nearly 200,000 of the people in this group would be in receipt of at least one of the rates of the new benefit."—[Official Report, 20 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 124.]
He attempted to justify the exclusion of the 300,000 by asserting that their problems were not, strictly speaking, disabilities. This is just playing with words. Their costs are just as great, and if they cannot afford the correct diets they may well soon become seriously disabled and die prematurely.
4.45 pm
This brings me back specifically to the situation of people with AIDS. I will pass over briefly the letter I quoted on Report from Mrs. Anita MacDonald, which blew out of the water all the figures Ministers had been quoting for the last two years on the cost of diets recommended to people with this condition. What it is essential to know now is how effective the social security system is in meeting their needs. The OPCS conducted its postal screening for the adult survey in March-May 1985. The Minister for Health told me on 28 March that in 1985 there were only 205 people alive with AIDS. The chances of one being included in the data were thus remote. Even one such person may well have died before interview. The OPCS data can therefore tell us nothing about the social security problem of people with AIDS in 1985–86—when


additions of £30 for the cost of diets were available on supplementary benefit—let alone today, when they may qualify for nothing.
So it was an additional disappointment when, on the same day—28 March—the right hon. Gentleman dismissed out of hand the suggestion that he should conduct research into the effectiveness of the social security system in meeting the financial needs of people with AIDS. He clearly just wants to bury his head in the sand. I will stress, in case he gives the same misleading reply as he gave on Report, that I am talking not just about people who will die within six months, but about people with AIDS who are determined to live, and who need the money to buy the right kind of food to enable them to do so. Our amendment, like those from the House of Lords, is thus extremely important.
I implore the right hon. Gentleman to recognise the validity of the amendments as a whole and, even at this late stage, to reconsider his position. Caroline Glendinning, in her deeply well-informed article in the current issue of Disability, Handicap and Society, says that, despite ministerial
rhetoric of 'protecting' the most 'deserving', `vulnerable' or `needy', much of this 'protection' has been illusory.
She states that the Government's economic and social policies have done much to damage the quality of life for disabled people, and she concludes:
The last ten years have, in policy terms, been disastrous for disabled people, involving threats to opportunities, living standards, independence and choice. Yet in response the growing strength and articulated demands of disabled people and their organisations give hope for the future.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that all the organisations of and for disabled people are united in very strong criticism of the Bill's inadequacies. To look for any exception to that truth is about as worthwhile as looking for the Kohinoor diamond in a box of Smarties. I ask him to recognise the force of disabled people's criticisms and now to respond more constructively to them.

Mr. John Hannam: First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People for the sympathetic hearing that he has given to the arguments advanced by Members of both Houses during meetings with the all-party disablement group and throughout our debates on the independent living fund. My right hon. Friend today confirmed the importance of the fund's role and acknowledged it in his announcement of a successor body.
There is no doubt that the ILF is recognised by everyone, including Ministers, as an important cog in the wheel of provision for severely disabled people. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee, the fund is a great success not least because it has identified a real need in the community and gives disabled people the chance to exercise control over the provision made for them.
The fund filled a worrying gap which became evident in 1986, and it has proved extremely successful in enabling severely disabled people to buy in their own personal care and assistance services. For many such people, the ILF is central to independent living, and disabled people want it to be made statutory. That has been the whole gist of the argument throughout our debates.
The ILF has been administered largely by disabled people, such as the eminent Peter Large, and at present it helps more than 7,000 severely disabled people to live in

the community. The average payment is about £70 per week, and the highest £400 per week. That gives some idea of the wide range of assistance that the ILF gives, and I express my thanks to all the members of the trust for their tremendous work for the ILF.
Looking to the future, we must ask ourselves to what extent social services departments, with all the diverse calls upon their funds, will be prepared to provide such levels of payment and assessment. On Monday, during health questions, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Health why local authorities were now being prevented from making individual cash payments in lieu of personal assistance. I asked that question because that problem is connected with the question of the ILF; the two are linked. If we do not have ring-fenced funding for community care and the ability to pay cash amounts, how can new severely disabled people be assured of help after 1993?
During the debate on a new clause that I tabled on Report, I said:
I cannot realistically envisage that one day in April 1993 all local authorities will suddenly, magically, assess and provide individually tailored packages of care for severely disabled people in the way that payments from the ILF do." —[Official Report, 7 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 435.]
Many feel that community care funding for local authorities is not yet adequate, and dread a future in which they may be forced back into institutionalised residential care after having enjoyed the basic human right of independent living. It is in that context that I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that the Government propose to continue to maintain payments to existing recipients of funds from the ILF. I am especially pleased that the new body will be able to increase the amounts if the needs of those severely disabled people increase. That is different from the principle applied in respect of the replacement social security benefit system in respect of special allowances. In that case, the allowances remained static and account was not taken of inflation. In this case, the arrangements are more flexible; allowance is being made for the possible deterioration in the condition of severely disabled people and for a consequent increase in their needs.
I remain concerned that those who become severely disabled after 1993 will be at the mercy of local authorities with varying levels of performance, and I continue to argue the case for ring-fenced funding to take account of the problem. Having said that, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will ensure that proper levels of provision are given through the care in the community system, and that will remain our main concern for the future.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his announcement today. I regard it as an achievement on the part of all those in both Houses who have campaigned on this issue and who have expressed deep concern about the sudden break that will occur when the ILF ceases to exist. We shall continue to monitor the situation carefully, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for listening to the arguments and for providing a solution today.

Mr. Jack Ashley: This is a remarkable debate. We have heard the Minister eulogising the independent living fund and his supporters saying how marvellous it is, yet the Government intend to kill the ILF stone dead. How on earth can any Government operate like that? If the ILF is as good as the Government make out, it is absolutely crazy to kill it, and the Minister knows


full well that the reasons that he advanced for doing so were pathetically inadequate. The decision has been dictated by the political fact that the Minister cannot get sufficient money to continue the ILF. That is the basic truth about this debate.
The Minister made one of the worst speeches that I have heard from him. He boasted about how wonderfully well the ILF had done. That is fine; we accept that. But if the disabled people of the present are entitled to the kind of consideration that they receive from the ILF, the disabled people of the future should be entitled to precisely the same consideration. Why should they be second-class citizens?
The Minister talked about the ILF passing on the baton to local authorities. How can he use such euphemisms? What if local authorities drop the baton because they are butterfingered? Many local authorities are hamfisted and will drop the baton and, as a consequence, disabled people will suffer. With a great fanfare of trumpets, the Minister says, "Local authorities are preparing their plans". That sounds marvellous. They are preparing their plans, we gather, for community care for disabled people. That is wonderful. There is just one thing wrong with the statement. I have been in the House for 25 years—some would say that that is far too long, but never mind—and I remember hearing the same refrain in respect of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Ministers said, "Local authorities are preparing their plans." We all know what happened. Countless local authorities neglected their responsibilities under the Act, implementation was patchy and after 21 years it has still not been fully implemented. There is absolutely no point in the Minister telling us that local authorities are preparing their plans because we are not convinced—and we are not convinced that they will take the baton that is passed to them by the ILF either.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) works closely with me. I am the chairman of the all-party disablement group and he is its secretary. He works very hard. Having said that, I think that he was a trifle too diplomatic today. I suspect that the fact that the Minister praised the hon. Gentleman and mentioned the efforts of other Conservative Members while failing to refer to those of the Opposition is a sign of the impending general election. The Minister was just a trifle selective, although I do not complain about that because I know that Opposition Members are marvellous, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will tear the Government to shreds, as the Minister knows, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has already made a fine speech. However, I want to avoid party politics.
When the hon. Member for Exeter said that many people were afraid that the funding of community care was "inadequate", he was taking diplomacy to its extremes. He knows quite well that it is not merely inadequate but pathetically inadequate. Community care is neglected by local authorities, and there is no point in the Minister saying that authorities will do the kind of job currently being done by the independent living fund.
I have 5,000 points to make, but I will sit down now because many hon. Members wish to speak and I see my

hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), the Opposition Whip, glaring at me from the end of the Front Bench.
I believe that the Minister is making a very serious mistake in ditching the ILF and handing responsibility to local authorities. He will be there this evening, with a wad of banknotes in his pocket like a gambler, with a majority of 100 in the Division Lobby. At the end of the debate, he will have lost the argument, but he will win the vote. He is presenting us with a fait accompli.
I ask the Minister this if, as is certain, he wins the vote and gets this killing of the ILF through, will he seek legislation to enable local authorities to make cash payments? I think that the all-party disablement group would support him very strongly on that. If the local authorities can have those powers, it will go a very short way towards ameliorating—not condoning, but ameliorating—the crime that he is about to commit by killing the ILF.

5 pm

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the successor to the independent living allowance for those 7,000 people benefiting from it. It will be reassuring to them, even if it brings a shadow of a doubt into my mind as to why the Government are not entirely confident that the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 will not be able to provide for these cases from 1 April 1993. I shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's explanation.
The disability living allowance, which is central to the Bill, seems on the face of it to be a sensible amalgamation of attendance and mobility allowances. Where there were two benefits there will now be just one. Fewer and simpler allowances always have much to commend them, especially if they make it easier for disabled people to know what is on offer. But that gain is negatived if administrative neatness detracts from the help that was originally available, or if the funding arrangements are varied and left with a margin of doubt about their payment.
To that extent, I understand and sympathise with those organisations representing the disabled which are concerned about what will happen when the independent living fund is phased out in 1993. I know that the fund is discretionary. I know that the Government have given assurances that the local authorities will take on responsibilities for the costs of domestic assistance within their new community care duties, as set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Act. But, leaving aside the 7,000 people to whom I have already referred, who are covered by the successor structure which my right hon. Friend outlined, for the newer claimant that must depend on the funds available and the sensitivities of local authorities to what is being asked for.
As I think the House knows, I am the president of the National Federation of Kidney Patients Associations. The federation has expressed to me its concern about what will happen when the independent living fund goes. It shares my worries about how local authorities will react.
Kidney patients on dialysis at home have the cost of paying for a carer to help them with their machine and to be available while dialysis is taking place. As I have told the House before, any suggestion that the attendance allowance at the lower rate for the cost of the carer is very


far from the truth. Undoubtedly, many of those who receive dialysis at home, and who are less fortunate in the amount of income that they have, have had to turn to the independent living fund for assistance to cover the cost of a carer. Therefore, they are worried about what will happen when their situation is dealt with by their local authority. Additional heating and diet, which has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), are costs that apply to all kidney patients who are on dialysis. Then there is the question of additional laundering requirements, particularly if a kidney patient is on CAPD—continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.
I know that those costs do not come immediately under the amendment that we are discussing, but they are nevertheless the costs of staying alive for kidney patients and therefore have to be met from some fund or other. Once upon a time those patients could rely on the additional costs being met by supplementary benefit. Then they were turned on to income support. Now, of course, they do not get any provision built into the Bill to which they can turn for support. So they wonder what statutory provision is being made for them, other than the community care proposals, to which I have referred, when the independent living fund disappears. I understand that the federation is not alone; other charities have the same misgivings.
If I am not to consider supporting their Lordships' amendments—and, as a kidney patient, my sympathy is obviously with the federation, even though I am now freed from the iron discipline of thrice-a-week home dialysis—I shall want reassurance from my right hon. Friend that the successor to the independent living fund does not mean that his Department is doubtful about the effective start-up of financing of the National Health Service and Community Care Act when, in theory, it comes into effect in April 1993. I hope that I have drawn the wrong interpretation from his announcement this afternoon, but the very fact that he felt it necessary to give the House that reassurance raises a doubt in my mind, which I hope that he will look at.

Mr. Wigley: The point that the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) made a moment ago is well made. If the new system is to be entirely reliable for those thousands of people who will come on stream from 1993 onwards, deserving of and needing the sort of support which the independent living fund is giving at the moment to an increasing number of people, that raises the whole question of the Government's confidence and the degree to which they have worked out their strategy for 1993 onwards.
Another point about that date is the future of local government itself. We know from discussions that have gone on at other times in the Chamber that there is a question whether we shall be moving in the next three or four years to a new structure of local government, with unitary authorities. If we do, authorities that are still finding their way forward may have to deal with not only responsibilities under the legislation that we passed two years ago, but with this additional responsibility.
We have all seen in our constituencies cases concerning people who are entitled to mobility allowance. A person aged perhaps 67 or 68 who has difficulty walking and who developed that difficulty at the age of 63 or 64 gets the mobility allowance. An identical person, perhaps living

next door, who did not develop that condition until he or she was 66 or 67 does not get the mobility allowance. That person does not understand why, in identical circumstances, the person next door gets the allowance and he or she does not.
We are now building up a similar structure, in which some people will be consolidated for ever more, presumably. If youngsters are getting help from the independent living fund now, they may live for another 50 years and they will have this ongoing institution, in whatever new structure it exists, to ensure that they are safeguarded from the failures and shortcomings of the alternative structure that the Government are introducing.
Is that really what the Minister is telling the House today? Is he saying that it is necessary to have this sort of structure on an ongoing basis to look after this group of people, which may build up by 1993 to be 15,000 or 20,000 strong and thereafter will taper off, over 50 years, until there are only one or two left? Is it a fact that the structure will exist for their benefit because of the Government's lack of confidence in the alternative that they are putting forward.

Mr. Scott: I sought in my reply to the hon. Member's earlier intervention to reassure him about this. I will try again, and perhaps at the same time I can address one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson).
It is not because of any lack of confidence in the arrangements for community care, but for two distinct reasons that we concluded that we needed to make continuing arrangements for the existing case load for the ILF in April 1993.
The first reason was that the local authorities would then be taking on many new responsibilities. To ask them to take over an existing caseload with whose individual needs they would, by definition, not be familiar at that point of change would be to put an excessive burden upon them. The second reason concerns a point that has been made very strongly to me in recent weeks and months. The existing recipients of money from the independent living fund are very concerned, as April 1993 approaches, about the ability of local authorities to take them on as going cases. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair-minded man, will recognise that I was seeking to meet genuine doubts and fears in the hearts and minds of existing beneficiaries of the fund.

Mr. Wigley: I welcome any assurance that has been given to those who were suffering from a feeling of insecurity as a result of the changes that have taken place. Any assurance that can be given is to be welcomed. I suspect, however, that in responding to one problem the Minister has opened Pandora's box and that a host of other problems will emerge. Surely the Minister is not saying that the new structure that will operate from April 1993, under local government control, will be incapable of taking on a going concern that has already been assessed and under which payments are being made. If the new structure is incapable of taking on that system, how will it be able to assess the 4,000 or 5,000 additional cases that will come to it each year, which until now have been dealt with by the independent living fund? I understand that the ILF will retain the responsibility for looking after those people that are on its books in June 1993, even though the nature of individuals' disabilities and needs may change.
In some instances financial needs may increase. It seems, however, that the ILF will continue to deal with them. It will monitor and assess, and in parallel with that operation there will be a similar structure doing an identical job under local authority control. Do I understand that aright?

Mr. Scott: In essence, yes. However, is the hon. Gentleman really asking me not to go down the road that I have outlined? Is he saying that whatever the case load of the ILF come April 1993, it being administered by ILF staff who know the individual cases and who have seen social workers' reports, the files should be distributed to the areas in which individual beneficiaries live and local authorities should be asked to take them on, when at the same time they are introducing their arrangements for the assessment of cases within the areas for which they are responsible? I believe that the Government have found a better way and a more reassuring approach. If the hon. Gentleman examines his conscience, I am sure that he will not advise me to take the route that he appears to be advocating.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister is saying that, in the second quarter of 1993, local authorities should not have the burden, as it were, placed upon them. It is possible that in nine, 12 or 24 months from now the local authorities will have the ground ready under their feet, and will then be in a position to cope more easily with any burden that is placed upon them. Is the Minister providing a continuing solution for the 50 years or so that beneficiaries may live beyond 1993, or is he saying that he is offering a solution that will stop individuals worrying, and that it is possible that a year or two after 1993 a unitary assessment system will be introduced that will be geared to local authorities?
I suspect that this is the tip of an iceberg. I accept that for every good motive in the world the Minister is trying to safeguard beneficiaries from a feeling of insecurity that has spread among them because of the way in which the changes to the system have unfolded, but he is introducing new problems that will have to be tackled by the next Conservative Government, or the next Labour Government. Whichever party wins the next general election, the Government who are formed will have to examine these matters in considerable depth. A basis must be established of rights and entitlements. Individuals should have the security that will come from knowing that payments will be made because of their statutory entitlements. Such rights should be built into legislation.
5.15 pm
I am not too certain whether the words that have been adopted by those in another place are the right ones, but it is clear that a significant majority of their Lordships supported the amendment. They agreed to that amendment because they were aware of the needs of the client group that we are discussing. I hope that at the very least the Government will give an assurance that they will find some way, even if not through this legislation, between now and 1993 to ensure that when the new system comes on stream everyone who has a need will know that he will have an entitlement, and that the state will ensure that it will be met and that no one will go without.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I am grateful for having the chance to speak in this important debate. I am sure that all

those who have participated in it have a personal responsibility for disabled people in their constituencies. Many of us have national responsibilities and help the disabled through charitable involvement or in other ways. I am especially proud to be one of the vice presidents of the recently established Conservative disability forum, which was founded by my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). In addition, I am chairman of ADAPT—access for disabled people to arts premises today—an organisation which comes under the Ministry with responsibility for the arts, which considers applications for Government funding. I am also a member of the Select Committee on Employment, which recently produced a report on disability and employment.
My reason for referring to those organisations and to the Select Committee, and indirectly to the three Departments to which they are related, is to show the Government's commitment to the disabled, which is entire and stretches across the spectrum of the Government's work. The Government have their heart in the right place and are prepared to dip into the public purse. They encourage private initiatives in every way they can. We are led by a Prime Minister whose dedication to the disabled is surely known to everyone. One of his first actions on becoming Prime Minister was to honour an existing commitment to give awards to young deaf people. He has continued to commit himself to the cause of the disabled. That is, however, merely indicative of the attitude of his Ministers towards those who are disabled, and none is more committed than my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.
The independent living fund was the creation of my right hon. Friend. I know that well because a couple in my constituency had a baby with devastating disabilities. There was acute hydrocephalus and non-development of the major brain stem, and the baby should have died. Shortly before the fund was announced, I discovered that the child had not qualified for any allowance at home because it was not meant to live. Under the old understanding, it would have remained in hospital until it died, fairly rapidly. By some freak, the child survived for some months. I went to my right hon. Friend the Minister and immediately thereafter the ILF was brought into play. That was triggered by his concern and his initiative.
I attempted to intervene at the beginning of the speech of the Opposition's spokesman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), because of his slight on my right hon. Friend the Minister, and because of his slight, through my right hon. Friend, on the Save The Children Fund. Monday night's event—I have no knowledge of who was there—was designed to benefit the Save The Children Fund and raised many thousands of pounds for that superb organisation, which has Government support from the Overseas Development Administration. I am ashamed of the Opposition spokesman for having slighted the effort that was made to support the Save The Children Fund, which has cared for millions of disabled children during its 70-year history.
I am concerned about those who benefit from the current independent living fund arrangements, but I do not share the Cassandra-like wails of the Opposition about the ability of local authorities to undertake responsibility for the disabled. Why not? The answer is that in the area which I represent—I invite others to have regard to their constituencies—the local authorities have already taken responsibility. The Griffiths report proposed packages of


independent care for independently-minded people who happen to be disabled, and that is already happening in the Torridge and Devon, West constituency. I pay special tribute to our foremost local authority staff member in Torridgeside who deals with such cases—Mr. Ian Rice and his outstanding team, who are a jewel in Britain's crown in this work. Indeed, experts from Scandinavia have been sent to see the ways in which that team is already effecting the principles and practice enshrined in the Griffiths report, which has been part and parcel of the work of that department in Torridgeside for some years now.
I do not share the apparent disregard for the capacity of local authorities to cope properly and well, strenuously, imaginatively and sensitively with the needs of the disabled. No, I do not doubt the Government's commitment to putting the funding behind that. Let us consider the Government's track record. Since 1979, spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has increased by 152 per cent. in real terms. Expenditure overall on recipients of help with mobility and care costs has increased by more than £5 billion in real terms since 1979 and the number of people helped as a result of this new Bill is 1·9 million, compared with 400,000 in 1979. That is no small achievement and I am confident that the Government will continue down that splendid route.
While welcoming the continuation of the independent living fund for the 8,000 people who currently benefit from it, and however much we welcomed its initiative several years ago, it could surely only be a stepping stone. Is it right and proper that we should ask for the continuation for ever of a system which makes judgments on cases from the top and not at grass roots level as the Griffiths report properly recommended. I am convinced that, although transitions are always difficult and we are quite properly fearful for the needs of those disabled people whom we care for in our constituencies or in our circle of family and friends, nevertheless, the independent living fund can only be a stepping stone because decisions should properly be made at patient level and not at the top. That is why I welcome the fine tuning arrangements outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister today.
I strenuously support my right hon. Friend's work and ask him to encourage the Secretary of State for Employment to look kindly at the proposals in paragraph 23 of the recently published report of the Select Committee on Employment that
The Government should explore urgently the possibility of equal opportunities legislation for the employment of people with disabilities and report to Parliament on its potential effects and costs in the labour market.
That is within his remit because the disability working allowance is already within it.

Mr. David Bellotti: The Bill does not meet the needs of the majority of disabled people in our communities who depend upon benefits. In fact, it does absolutely nothing for more than 4 million pensioners who have disabilities. The Bill will help about 300,000 of the 6·2 million people in our community who have disabilities. The extra costs that will be incurred as a result of the Bill are nothing compared with the cuts which took place in the Social Security Act 1990. Indeed, the comprehensive review of disability benefits that the Government promised had not taken place before the publication of "The Way Ahead".
People who have disabilities have many extra needs which have not been tackled in the Bill. The issues that we

are discussing do nothing for them. For example, the Bill does nothing for people with disabilities who need extra heating as a result of being confined to their homes for long periods of time, or for those people who have extra dietary needs. One hon. Member mentioned the dietary needs of those who suffer from AIDS and other people have dietary needs. The Bill does nothing for people who have special transport needs—I have many such cases in my constituency—or for those with extra laundry needs.
I am surprised that the Minister should rise from the Government Benches to say that the Government's record on work for those with disabilities is good. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) cited one major Government strategy in the area of employment which was supposed to help people with disabilities. I find that amazing because the Government's employment policy for those with disabilities has led to one of the most massive cuts in funding that I have known in the 25 years that I have been working with people in the community. I refer to the massive cuts in the Government's employment and youth training programmes for people with disabilities.
Some months ago I asked a question of the Minister and the record shows that cuts have been made successively in recent years, and at the present time even more so—about 30 per cent. All the voluntary organisations in the country have got together to tell the Government that people with disabilities are not being recruited to Government training programmes. Therefore, it is misleading and scurrilous for the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West to cite that example from the Conservative Benches and she should reconsider her comments.
The independent living fund should be placed on a statutory basis. It should not be discretionary, or grace and favour, but should be available as of right. Let us suppose that from 1993 local authorities will have responsibility for their areas. I remind the Minister of the Government's record since 1979. The Government have removed from local authorities £58 billion worth of funding in real terms for local government services. With that record, it is no wonder that people working in the voluntary sector and advocates for people with disabilities do not believe that the Government will provide the resources that will be needed. As the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has said on a number of occasions, those promises are worthless without ring-fencing the sums of money available. That is certainly the case when one considers the Government's track record.
When we are told that community care packages will meet people's needs, we must ask what the Government have done to help local authorities to plan and prepare for the implementation of the community care provisions which will be in force from 1993. The Government have entered into discussions on the structure of local government and those new structures will be in place from 1994. We have the ludicrous situation in which the Government are transferring major policy areas to local government in 1993, and the promise of a reorganisation of local government in 1994, which is a recipe for chaos and disaster. However, in recent years the Government have shown that they are prepared only to pass the buck to local government without passing the resources.
Today we are concerned with people who have disabilities. They have rights and they should not be dependent upon charity. People on the independent living


fund have been somewhat reassured today by the statement made, but for those who join that area of need in the future there are but empty promises.
If the Government are funding that trust well now, why do they not reallocate that sum of money and introduce ring-fencing? They should pass not just the responsibility, but the funds, to local authorities.
The amendments from the other place seek to improve a poor Bill and are concerned with those who are most seriously disabled. The community care supplement would help to meet real needs. I ask the House to support the amendments and disabled people.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I agree with the response of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), much of whose speech did not seem to relate to reality. Before she leaves the Chamber, may I say that I much preferred her televised speech on St. Stephens green in support of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) during the election campaign for the Tory party leadership to the speech that she made today. The hon. Lady was also uncharacteristically ungracious in her remarks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who had only just started his speech when the hon. Lady sought to intervene. She has much to learn from him about disability and other issues.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I hope that I was not being discourteous to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about his ability or his depth of feeling for the disabled. However, his inapposite and insensitive criticism of my right hon. Friend the Minister's support for the Save the Children Fund, which has been pre-eminent throughout this century in the care and protection of handicapped children, caused me to intervene towards the beginning of his speech, which was where he put in his poisoned dart.

Mr. Clarke: When the hon. Lady reads my right hon. Friend's speech, she will see that he did not refer to that. For some reason, the hon. Lady seems to be in a little tantrum. I hope that the Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), will give her a ticket for the Chelsea flower show so that her speeches will not be so difficult in future debates.
On a more serious point, although I am sorry to dwell on the hon. Lady's speech, I profoundly disagree with her suggestion that the Prime Minister has acted in the interests of Britain's disabled people. One of the first issues over which he presided was the shameful announcement that the remaining sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 would not be implemented. When we consider the independent living fund—the vital issue that is before the House today—we shall see the importance of advocacy and its relationship to any strategy for community care.
The Government's approach to the independent living fund is less about passing the baton than about passing the buck to local authorities. Our greatest worry about that relates to ring-fencing. By passing responsibilities to local authorities, the Government are not providing the vital resources that will make their decisions meaningful, which

must be an enormous worry to disabled people and their carers. That aspect of Government policy worries me and the organisations of and for disabled people.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Does my hon. Friend remember opening Wallace Court, where the Scottish Council for Spastics was operating a centre in Elderslie in my constituency? Is he aware that that centre now faces a massive annual deficit because of lack of available funding, part of which came from local authorities, which are experiencing difficulties collecting the poll tax from, among others, mentally handicapped people?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I remember visiting Elderslie in his constituency and the splendid provisions made for the disabled in the Strathclyde region. My hon. Friend's example underlines the fact that, as with the independent living fund, it is not enough for the Minister simply to say that he looks forward to 1993 and to give vague promises for community care, which the Government seem loth to explain. Indeed, they have not even explained why they have postponed their policies for community care—the only aspects of their legislation that many people welcomed. My hon. Friend's point stands—it is profoundly unfair to offer local authorities the prospect of making the provisions that they clearly want for disabled people but deny them the resources that are fundamental to meeting those objectives.
Despite the Minister's earlier response to me on disability income, I am still worried about the Government's thinking on cash limits. Will the Minister take this second opportunity to clarify that matter? It is not simply a case of people who do not benefit at the moment not benefiting in the future, but a question of whether the Government's policy on cash limits, which has so discredited the social fund, will apply here. As the Minister did not take the opportunity of my earlier intervention to state firmly that cash limits would not apply, will he do so when he winds up?
The central thrust of the Labour party's comments suggests that the Minister cannot come to the House yet again with a proposal—in this case the independent living fund—and present it in a vacuum. What is the Government's understanding of community care and how do those issues inter-relate? He must be more positive about what will happen in 1993 and about ring-fencing, advocacy and the future of local government. That fair point has been made by several hon. Members. I am sorry to say that, as so often in the past, the Minister has been disappointing in his failure to win battles with the Treasury. I hope that he will not be too disappointed when some of us question the proposals that he has made today.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: First, I wish to apologise to the House for my absence from part of the debate. Unfortunately, I was carrying out parliamentary duties elsewhere.
I support the Government's position in opposing the amendment for a number of fundamental reasons. First, the Government's record on this subject is exemplary. Although the Opposition have criticised it forcefully, 400,000 disabled people were being helped in 1979 and today 1·9 million are helped and expenditure on disabled


people has increased to £5 billion. Those figures are not trivial and show the deep concern on both sides of the House for the need to help disabled people.
The major reason why we should look again at the Lord's amendment, which, on the face of it, has some credibility, is my right hon. Friend the Minister's announcement about the future of the independent living fund and his proposals to replace it. Under the system, 8,000 severely disabled people have their payments protected and will benefit considerably. That meets some of the arguments that have been put forward against the amendment.
The clause contains a disability living allowance that meets the major problems encountered by all hon. Members in their constituencies in relation to the attendance allowance and mobility allowance. I am pleased that the Government, as I understand it, will accept the changes in the mobility allowance test and we shall see the end of the walking test, which was nonsense. If someone can walk 100 yd or whatever distance, it does not mean that he can go on and on walking, certainly not without pain. I am pleased to see the back of that.
There will also be additional resources——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We are not discussing the clause, but specific amendments. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not addressed those amendments and I hope that he will do so.

Mr. Hind: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Lord's amendment shows that the Lords have no confidence in the system of community care to be introduced. In 1993, responsibility for caring for severely handicapped people will be placed on local authorities, through their community plans, and they will have to make individual evaluations of the needs of those in their care. That will negate the need for the community care addition to the clause as proposed in the Lords amendment. Therefore, I urge the House to set aside the amendment. The disability working allowance and the disability living allowance are great improvements, but we must view them side by side with the proposals for care in the community which, effectively, negate the need for the amendment.

Mr. Graham Allen: What the 7,000 people who currently rely on the independent living fund need more than anything else—perhaps more than the money that they receive from the fund—is security and a sense of permanence in the arrangements made in individual cases. I am glad to see Ministers nodding. I hope that between us, and in the light of the protracted proceedings on the Bill for 27 hours in this place and the other place, we shall be able to find some means of providing those 7,000 people with that permanency and security. Perhaps we failed the test in not coming up with something to meet that need.
The Lords proposed a new clause and the idea that the ILF should be found a place in statute so that it would have a long future. We all know that the deeds of the ILF, which was created in 1978, expire on 8 June 1993. If we are to believe that the ILF should be retained and found a place in statute, we must test whether the ILF has done its job.
I have attempted to read the various Committee reports, proceedings in the other place, briefings circulated by all the organisations interested in the issue, and

pronouncements by eminent hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have yet to find one individual who can deny that the ILF has not only done its job well, but done it in an exemplary fashion of which all those who have worked in it should be proud. I have not heard one logical argument to show that the ILF should be wound up, that it is inefficient, a creation of socialism, a nationalised industry or wasteful of public expenditure—all the usual things that are chanted whenever a decision is made to abolish an institution.
5.45 pm
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who was present earlier, and his colleagues on the former Social Security Select Committee pronounced, as one, that they wished to see the ILF retained. Today and on other occasions the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has spoken of the superb work of the ILF and was glad to pay tribute to it. I am pleased to associate myself with those remarks. The all-party disablement group, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and other hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber have all said that the ILF has done a remarkable job and is worthy of being retained to carry out its current functions.
That leads me to believe that there must be something else wrong with it—perhaps its shape, organisation or structure. Recently, we have heard much about the agencies being created within the social security sphere. We have heard about the contributions agency and the benefits agency. I agree with the concept that all those agencies are to be established to create a more customer-sensitive service that will deliver, be localised and responsive, and carry out the valuable functions that hon. Members believe all such organisations should have.
The ILF meets every one of those criteria and more. It disburses amounts of money ranging from £60 to £700 with great sensitivity, touch and responsiveness to those severely disabled people who require assistance. It cannot be faulted on that count. The Minister eulogised the ILF in his earlier speech, and I do not blame him, although whether it was a eulogy or an epitaph, I am not sure. The ILF deserves a eulogy, and I am more than happy to add my voice to those who congratulated the Minister on the significant part that he played in creating the ILF.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was a little harsh in referring to King Herod and infanticide, but he is known for his bruising style. I would use another religious analogy—Abraham's relationship to Isaac. Almost as an act of faith, the Minister is placing the beloved child he created on an altar in which I do not believe he has faith. I do not believe that the Minister feels that it is appropriate to sacrifice that child on the old altars of public expenditure—maintaining tight budgets when dealing with those in greatest need. Perhaps the Minister does, but I do not feel that he has made a convincing case today as to why the ILF should be wound up.
There was a happy ending in the case of Abraham and Isaac. I do not want to be tested too heavily on my religious knowledge, but I understand that divine intervention occurred at the last moment. In this instance, divine intervention, or its closest equivalent, might come, not necessarily from an election but from No. 10 Downing street—from John, son of God, or son of Brian, I am not too sure which. He has shown that he is not averse to a little political opportunism to get a bit of the credit for the


Government, and I welcome that. He has given money to the haeomophiliacs, an action commended by all hon. Members. We have seen a little nod in the direction of severe weather payments, and an attempt to claim perhaps greater credit than he deserved. Such a concession is welcome, and there have been a number of other cases where nice little announcements have been made to bolster the Prime Minister's image. If it means that 7,000 disabled people will receive a better deal, I for one will be the first to congratulate the Prime Minister.

Mr. Scott: I detect——

Mr. Allen: I am giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "We thought that you had finished."] I think that that was an intervention from a sedentary position. Perhaps I may continue. I am being heckled more severely by my hon. Friends than I usually am by Conservative Members.
We now appear to be proceeding towards "son of ILF". It seems that there is to be a successor body, albeit a transitional one. The Government intend to transfer the cases currently dealt with by the ILF to local authorities as far as is possible, but those that cannot be so transferred will be dealt with by the transitional body.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) pointed out, that is not so much passing the baton as passing the buck. I do not know what the transitional body will be called. Perhaps it will be the National Organisation for Transitional Arrangements, whose acronym would be "No, ta", or perhaps it will be called the Nick Scott Benevolent Fund. Whatever it is called, it will continue to administer a number of cases, although the vast majority will be transferred to local authorities. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, local authorities are not yet in a position to deliver in many of those cases. They cannot yet provide the care package needed by those who currently depend on the ILF.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) put his finger on it. We shall end up with a rolling programme —a programme that will roll a number of people out of "son of ILF" into local authority care. We have not been told how that will be done, or the basis on which people will be assessed as being capable of being transferred. That, too, will cause considerable anxiety among those who are currently entirely dependent on the ILF. They will need to know as soon as possible whether they are in the domain of the local authority, that of the ILF or that of "son of ILF".

Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allen: No. The hon. Gentleman came in late, and made a speech that may not have been entirely relevant to the amendment.
Local authorities themselves are beset by a number of problems. They will have to introduce the package amid other major structural changes. Whichever party is in power, changes may be made that will affect them directly. "Son of poll tax" will be hanging round their necks; the financial squeeze will, of course, continue. In the middle of all that, we shall be expecting authorities whose social services budgets are already under considerable stress to pick up a number of difficult cases.
I am afraid that, as the hon. Member for Exeter pointed out, local authorities may be unable to maintain a large

proportion of those people. As he said, authorities may have to put many of them into accommodation that they would not normally have chosen; if the ILF payments had been maintained, those people would probably have been able to stay at home. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) rather let the cat out of the bag when she made a passing reference to private care. I do not quite know how that will fit into the equation, given the number of people who will be taken out of the domain of the ILF and, perhaps, put into private rather than local authority accommodation.
Today's announcement about the proposed transitional arrangements raises more questions than it answers. Seven thousand people look to us in this place—and will look to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People—for clarification. An election is on the way. I hope that, with the return of a Labour Government, it will be clear that the independent living fund will continue to serve the people whom, as even the Minister has admitted, it has served so well. Once he has answered some of those questions, we shall wish to divide the House.

Mr. Scott: I detect, on both sides of the House, a wish to reach an early decision on the amendments. I shall therefore sum up quickly while also addressing a number of the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) either was not listening to the announcement that I made in my opening speech, or was being mischievous at the end of his. I emphasised—not only in my opening speech, but in response to a number of interventions in the speeches of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others —my anxiety to set at rest any fears that the ILF might have about its future, given its existing caseload. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North suggested that at the point of change, and in the succeeding months and years, there might be picking and choosing in relation to which existing ILF beneficiaries would be transferred to local authorities. That suggestion is without foundation: the entire caseload will be the responsibility of the new body. There will be no question of its being shifted to local authorities.
I realise that change is never comfortable, and I am therefore not surprised that anxieties have been voiced this afternoon. It is, however, something of an irony that three hon. Members who were present when the establishment of the ILF was announced should say what they are saying now. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) expressed disappointment; the hon. Member for Caernarfon said that it was an interim step towards the privatisation of a facility; the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) saw it as an abdication of the Government's responsibilities. Those three are the most passionate defenders of the success of the fund. But I do not wish to make too much of that; I do not want to embarrass Opposition Members.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott: No. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman did not give way to my hon. Friend and I want to get on. The right hon. Gentleman may be very embarrassed about what I have just said, but I see no reason to give way to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) paid warm tribute to the trustees of the ILF, as did I. He


particularly mentioned Mr. Peter Large, with whose name I would couple that of Pauline Thompson: both have played a distinguished part in the workings of the fund over the past three and a half years or so.
My hon. Friend also referred to community care and the Griffiths report. I think that decisions should indeed be made at local level. Local authorities ought to be in a position to know what is needed in the community, and also what is available; they should also be able to take steps to supply what is lacking.
I understand the point that my hon. Friend made about the difference between cash and care, and his observation about the ILF's unique attribute—its ability to pay cash to people so that they have control over their own care needs. I am anxious to ensure that, when the new arrangements come into effect, it will be possible for disabled people and their carers to exert the maximum influence and control over those arrangements. Now is the time when the consumers, as well as the providers, of care should be working to ensure that, when we reach the transition point in 1993, appropriate arrangements are in place.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South was on song today: he was in good voice. I was nevertheless astonished at the strength of his arguments. If I may say so, however, he was wrong to suggest that local authorities were merely being asked to prepare plans. Local authorities have a statutory duty to prepare plans, and submit them to the Department of Health; they must also show that they are able to respond to local needs.
The right hon. Gentleman was also anxious about the resources that would be available, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson). They —or, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman—may know what those resources will be; if so, the right hon. Gentleman is privy to information that is not yet available to me. We shall have to see, when April 1993 arrives, what arrangements are made for local authorities to deal with community care.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury welcomed the new arrangements for the administration, assessment and adjudication of DLA. I am pleased that we have been able to demedicalise those arrangements and rely much more on self-assessment. I am confident that the arrangements will work well. I am at pains to put to rest the fear of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury that people on current rates of attendance and mobility allowance will be moved to the lower rates of the mobility or care components of DLA; they will retain their present entitlements.
6 pm
The new system will be reliable and flexible and I have explained why it is essential to move to the new arrangements for community care in 1993 and to place the main responsibility on local authorities. The existing caseload should be looked after by a successor body to the ILF.
I understand the strong feelings of the hon. Member for Caernarfon—he has made this point to me more than once —about the age limit for mobility allowance and the new mobility component of DLA. I told him that it would cost almost £2 billion to abolish age limits. Not even the Labour party, if it had the opportunity, would he in a position to take that step.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for her

defence of the Government's record, which I have mentioned more than once at Question Time and on previous occasions. The Government far outstripped their predecessor in making provision for severely disabled people.
I am sorry that the Chelsea flower show entered our discussions. Not only the Labour party but "Atticus" seems capable of putting two and two together and making five.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) raised the scare about imposing cash limits on the independent living fund. I have already made it clear that we shall spend more on the ILF next year than this year and, as the ILF does now, the successor body will be able to make increased payment when the need arises.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister used the word "scare", but I can assure him that that was not intended—it was a genuine search for knowledge. If he can assure us that there will not be cash limits, I shall be happy.

Mr. Scott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Those who support the amendments are anxious to reinvent the complexities of the supplementary benefit system. Such a system would be unworkable in practice. A combination of our two new disability benefits at national level, providing the generality of care, and local authorities, providing individual community care for disabled people, and the protection that I have announced for the existing ILF caseload is the right package of measures to continue this important work, and I urge the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 198.

Division No. 150
at 6.03 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Aitken, Jonathan
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Alexander, Richard
Buck, Sir Antony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Batiste, Spencer
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, Mr


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Colvin, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Conway, Derek


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, Rt Hon John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cormack, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Cran, James


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Devlin, Tim


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dunn, Bob






Durant, Sir Anthony
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dykes, Hugh
Maclean, David


Emery, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Madel, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Malins, Humfrey


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mans, Keith


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maples, John


Fookes, Dame Janet
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marlow, Tony


Franks, Cecil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Maude, Hon Francis


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Iain


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Sir David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Roger


Gorst, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ground, Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Grylls, Michael
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James
Pawsey, James


Hind, Kenneth
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Holt, Richard
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Price, Sir David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunter, Andrew
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Irvine, Michael
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Irving, Sir Charles
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kilfedder, James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shelton, Sir William


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Latham, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Keith


Lightbown, David
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Steen, Anthony





Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Ward, John


Stokes, Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, Sir John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Trippier, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Walden, George
Mr. Tom Sackville.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Fatchett, Derek


Allen, Graham
Faulds, Andrew


Alton, David
Fearn, Ronald


Anderson, Donald
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flynn, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foster, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Galbraith, Sam


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Beggs, Roy
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beith, A. J.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bellotti, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benton, Joseph
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Gould, Bryan


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boyes, Roland
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hardy, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Henderson, Doug


Buckley, George J.
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, Jimmy


Cartwright, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Geraint


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Crowther, Stan
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cummings, John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cunningham, Dr John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David


Darling, Alistair
Lamond, James


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livsey, Richard


Dobson, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loyden, Eddie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAllion, John


Eadie, Alexander
McCartney, Ian


Edwards, Huw
McFall, John






McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Robertson, George


McKelvey, William
Robinson, Geoffrey


McLeish, Henry
Rogers, Allan


McMaster, Gordon
Rooker, Jeff


Madden, Max
Rooney, Terence


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Salmond, Alex


Martlew, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Maxton, John
Sheerman, Barry


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meale, Alan
Short, Clare


Michael, Alun
Sillars, Jim


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stott, Roger


Mowlam, Marjorie
Strang, Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nellist, Dave
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


O'Hara, Edward
Walley, Joan


O'Neill, Martin
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Parry, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pike, Peter L.
Wilson, Brian


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray, Jimmy


Quin, Ms Joyce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Radice, Giles



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


Reid, Dr John
Mr. Martyn Jones.


Richardson, Jo

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 36, at end insert—
(aa) he falls within subsection (1A) below; or".

Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 5 and Nos. 7 to 12 inclusive. I must inform the House that some of the amendments involve privilege.

Mr. Scott: I do not intend to weary the House by recapping at length the problems that we have had to overcome on this issue. I know that all hon. Members will accept that the problems were severe and I pay the warmest possible tribute to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for his intervention in the case, for his sympathy when I was not able to respond, and for his welcome now that we are able to do so.
We have been struggling to find a way of distinguishing the relatively restricted group of people whose mental handicap and behavioural problems are so severe that they make it effectively impossible for them to walk from the much wider group of people whose problems in walking can be overcome if they are supervised and guided by another person.
The amendments would ensure that the smaller group of severely mentally handicapped people who have severe

behavioural problems will get the higher rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance. We propose to demarcate that group by relying on entitlement to the highest rate of the care component as a filter and then directing simple questions to the professional people who will be best able to judge how severe the effects of the mental handicap are. That makes me optimistic about solving the problem.
We look forward to continuing to work closely with voluntary organisations such as Mencap and the Spastics Society which have also put much effort into helping us with the means of identifying the target group. With their assistance, I am confident that we can get the benefit to those who need it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister knows that it is totally farcical to say that I slighted him in referring to his attendance at the preview of the Chelsea flower show if, as I hope, he did attend. Indeed, I congratulated him on a contest he had won and, by implication, on both his good sense and good taste in attending the preview as I myself used to do when I was the Minister. My point was that, if it is also true that the right hon. Gentleman has been battling with the Treasury to avoid having to oppose Lords amendments tonight, that unfortunately is a contest he lost.
Naturally I very much welcome this penultimate chapter in a long-running saga which occupied us here and in Committee on many occasions before the Bill went to the Lords. A very great deal of the credit for what has been won must go to Lord Allen of Abbeydale and to Mary Holland, formerly of Mencap and now of RADAR, who fought for years through a fog of misinformation from the DSS. It was in relation to similar amendments in another place, on a previous Bill, that the OPCS data tapes first made their appearance. It was highly appropriate for my colleague and friend, Lord Carter, to say in Committee in another place that they appeared over the horizon like the United States cavalry coming to the rescue and ending up like Sherlock Holmes's dog which did not bark.
Ministers in Standing Committee assured us that they wished to make this move, but they were not content with Opposition amendments and could not work out one of their own. For some time it seemed touch and go whether any Government amendment would be tabled to the Bill.
I have called this the penultimate chapter of the saga because the chickens will not hatch until the regulations referred to in Lords amendment No. 10 are laid. Can the Minister shed any light on the contents of the draft regulations? Will he give a commitment to work closely with, in particular, Mencap and the Spastics Society?
These amendments also place in primary legislation the entitlement to mobility allowance, or the higher mobility component of the DLA, of people who are both blind and deaf. Are we to infer that previous regulations were ultra vires? As the Minister may know, the Disability Alliance, which has worked so very hard on this Bill for people with disabilities, and in assisting hon. Members on both sides of the House, states:
Clearly … confusion has been caused by a legal mistake on the part of the Government.
Can the Minister give any further information about take-up? Is he satisfied that the regulations are being correctly interpreted by examining doctors and adjudicators? Will he explain why the entitlement of double amputees was not also put on the face of the Bill? May we


be assured that, in a year's time, his legal advisers will not have changed their minds, as they have apparently done with the deaf and blind, and seek a further amendment to the law? Might not inclusion in the Bill assist take-up?
I thank Ministers for listening finally to the insistent representations made to them, in both Houses over many years, and also to the cogent arguments of voluntary organisations. I hope that they will follow the same pattern, perhaps rather less dilatorily, in regard to some of the other extremely important issues we have raised in the debates on this Bill.
Yes, it will cost money to do so, but it will also avert human suffering. That more money is needed is demonstrated by a simple comparison that refutes every word that has been said from that side of the House about how vastly disabled people have benefited from this Government's policies. The comparison is that, while average earnings have risen by more than 20 per cent. since 1979, disability benefits have risen by only 1 per cent. That is the central truth about all the self-congratulatory comments we have heard from some Conservative Members in tonight's debate and why much more needs to be done if we are really to address humanely the unmet needs of disabled people.

Mr. Wigley: I thank the Minister for his kind remarks and even more for having at last succeeded in getting this problem sorted out. The group of mentally handicapped people who, at one stage, were deemed to be entitled and who then, for many years, after the case law, lost that entitlement will now again be entitled to the allowance. That is a matter of considerable pleasure to Mencap, to the Spastics Society and to a number of other organisations that have worked hard on the problem. I also thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for the reception that we have had on a number of occasions on which delegations have been to see them.
Can the Minister give any idea of when the provisions will come to fruition and people can apply for benefit? There are different dates for different sections, so it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an idea.
Amendment No. 7 deals with the deaf-blind. Will the Minister clarify—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) referred to this—the position of the existing help given to deaf-blind people under the provisions introduced in April 1990? It appears that it is a question of interpretation. For those who are almost wholly deaf but who have some residual vision, there is a test of the extent of that vision. People have to say how many fingers are being held up at a distance of 1 ft. The point must be considered seriously.
Let us consider the case of a person who is wholly deaf and who is walking down a road. That person needs sufficient residual vision to see whether a car is coming. However, the fact that he or she can see four fingers at a distance of 1 ft does not mean that he or she can discern a fast-moving vehicle at a distance of 50 yd or 100 yd. In the spirit of last year's provisions, those people should be eligible for mobility allowance because they cannot get around without help. However, the interpretation may be restrictive and needs to be considered. Having said that, I am grateful that the Lords amendments were tabled and that they will help many people.

Mr. Scott: I take the point on the deaf-blind. We thought that it was entirely sensible to take the opportunity to include them within the group in primary legislation. I am conscious that the arrangements that we introduced within mobility allowance for the deaf-blind have not been working out as satisfactorily as we had hoped. We have again consulted Sense about the matter. Those who are interested in such matters will see an improvement in the take-up and many more people whom we believe would be entitled will receive the benefit.
The new benefit will come into operation in April 1992. We want the regulations to be in place well before that. As the hon. member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) knows, claimants will be able to apply for the new benefits from February next year, well in advance of the introduction of the benefits. That will make administrative sense and it will be useful for our customers to be able to benefit from the arrangements. We shall, of course, keep in the closest possible touch with Mencap and the Spastics Society in drafting the regulations. I am sure that that will be of great benefit.

Mr. Ashley: May I warmly welcome the Minister's announcement? It is an advance. I add my congratulations on the efforts of Lord Allen, Lord Carter, Mary Holland and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
Will the Minister carefully monitor the whole proceedings to ensure that none of the mentally handicapped or deaf-blind people who are deserving will be excluded?

Mr. Scott: We shall be anxious to ensure that the regulations do the job for which they are intended. With the help of the Spastics Society and Mencap, I am sure that we can achieve that. Although I did not pay tribute to the people mentioned by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I take the opportunity to do so now.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 4, line 38, leave out from "that" to "guidance" in line 39 and insert
disregarding any ability he may have to use routes which are familiar to him on his own, he cannot take advantage of the faculty out of doors without

Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Once more I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who convinced us of the need for an amendment of this sort so that our intentions were clear in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman was, as ever, an invaluable member of the Committee which considered the Bill. I know that he wanted us to go further in some areas than we have done, but I am sure that he will recognise that the Bill will be of genuine benefit to groups such as the blind and the mentally impaired at whom the amendment is primarily aimed.
We will need to monitor closely how the law is interpreted in practice, but I think that the amendment makes as clear as possible our intentions for the lower rates of the mobility component.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 6

INTRODUCTION OF DISABILITY WORKING ALLOWANCE

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 10, line 10, leave out
at least one of the eight weeks" and insert
one or more of the 56 days

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 26, 27, 29 and 31.

Miss Widdecombe: I understand that the Opposition have requested that we debate this group of amendments with Lords amendment No. 28 and their amendment (a), but because Lords amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 29 and 31 are all drafting amendments intended to ensure that the Bill has the effect intended, I propose to concentrate on Lords amendment No. 28 and the Opposition's amendment (a). If there are any questions on the other amendments I will return to them at the end of the debate.
Amendment No. 28 clarifies the drafting of clause 6. People who have an income-related benefit and are also receiving a disability premium will satisfy the qualifying benefit test. It was pointed out in Committee that the original drafting appeared to require such people to satisfy additional conditions. That is not our intention. We had a further look at the clause and decided that an amendment was necessary to make that clear.
The power to prescribe the circumstances in which a claimant with an income-related benefit satisfies the qualifying benefit test is necessary because the disability premium is described in regulations rather than in the 1986 Act. The disability working allowance regulations must cross-refer to those.
However, the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) would have a different effect. It would make a small but significant dent in the rule that all DWA claimants must be getting a long-term disability benefit before they claim DWA.
That rule—the qualifying benefit rule—has been debated at length in the House and in another place, and it has been accepted that there are good reasons for keeping the rule intact. In particular, the rule helps us to devise a streamlined method of deciding claims so that people who are entitled to DWA will get their money quickly. That is obviously essential for any benefit which is designed to encourage people to try work.
We have agreed in previous debates on DWA that it is essential that claims should be decided quickly and that claimants should have confidence that the money will be available in a few days. One of the obstacles to speedy administration of claims to disability benefit is the need to establish that the claimant is disabled. We have been able to simplify the test for DWA and to base it to a considerable degree on self-assessment, simply because every recipient will already have passed a disability test in respect of another benefit for long-term sick and disabled people. The simple fact that he or she has qualified for a disability benefit in the past or at the time of applying will

establish that a long-term disability is present. In other words, it is a passported benefit. We believe that that is the way to get the money quickly and simply to the claimant.
It is also essential that claimants should understand the conditions and be able to fulfil them easily. I believe that disabled people will welcome being able to do without medical examinations, which have bedevilled so many claims for benefits in the past, and that it will make an enormous difference to speed, efficiency and simplicity.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that we support Lords amendment No. 26 which cuts out any reference to disability premiums on the face of the Bill, but we have our reservations about Lords amendment No. 28, which apparently allows the Government to bring them back through regulations.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for his ingenuity in moving an amendment in lieu which, after 20 years in Parliament, I did not know could be done in respect of Lords amendments. My right hon. Friend has effectively helped us to make our point.
The whole point of amendment (a) is to provide an alternative way of qualifying for the disability working allowance for all disabled people on benefits. The functional test already proposed by the Government to identify whether someone is disabled could also clearly be used for the initial claim of DWA for those disabled people on income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit not receiving the disability premiums.
I stress that that will entail only a minimal amount of extra administration—that was not the objection that the hon. Lady brought forward—because it will simply be applying the standardised test which adjudication officers will already be using, especially when disabled people repeat their claims for DWA every six months.
The amendment will produce consistency throughout the different claiming periods and it will ensure that all disabled people claiming benefits can take advantage of the DWA scheme and will not be allowed to fall through the net.
I am not persuaded by the Minister's argument that the Bill should be preserved as it is simply on grounds of speed. I do not believe that that can justify a rejection of our amendment, but, quite apart from that—I am not persuaded that the procedure could not be speeded up—the real objection is that a lot of disabled people will otherwise fall through the net.
When people claim DWA for the first time, they have to show that they are disabled, provide proof of qualifying for benefit and show that they are at a disadvantage in getting work, all of which we have gone through many times. Unfortunately, one of the main problems is the extremely narrow way in which the term "qualifying benefits" is defined. It is difficult to believe that that is not the reason why the Government are so keen to keep it.
At first sight, it may seem that there is a fairly lengthy list of benefits. It includes those claiming disability living allowance, severe disablement allowance, invalidity benefit and the disability premiums associated with income support, housing benefit, or community charge benefit. However, most people who claim disability premiums are allowed to do so only because they are in receipt of one of the other benefits listed. Given these pretty stringent rules and the enormous pitfalls that there are in defining


disadvantage, the Bill as drafted will effectively exclude thousands of disabled people who may otherwise have been helped by the benefit. That is our concern in pressing the amendment.
We believe—this is at the heart of the issue—that the key principle should be that the burden of proof in qualifying for disability working allowance should be whether or not a person is disabled, not whether a potential claimant happens to have the right kind of benefit at the right time.
Other amendments have been proposed throughout the passage of the Bill. We have sought firmly to establish this principle by seeking to include disabled people who are not necessarily claiming these benefits. Unfortunately, our amendments have been repeatedly rejected by the Government on certain grounds. A new ground has been introduced tonight—speed. Furthermore, the question of cost was raised in another place, a point to which I shall return. In addition, reference was made to the anticipated administrative difficulties in defining disability.
The amendment would overcome those problems. It would incur less expense. A disabled person wishing to claim DWA would still have to be in receipt of income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit. It would also be relatively easy to define disability because the functional test, which will already be used for some claimants, could also be applied to those disabled people who do not necessarily have a disability premium.
I repeat that the main point is that the Bill, as drafted, will attract only a very small proportion of disabled people who wish to make the transition from surviving on benefits to employment. The Government's calculation of the potential claimants of DWA—I believe the figure is 50,000 —is pretty small compared with their own estimate of the number of disabled people wanting work. The social and community planning research figures, which many people believe are very conservative, show that there are at least 285,000 disabled people wanting work, which is more than five times the number of people who are expected to claim DWA.
There are several categories of people who, if we leave the Bill as it is at the moment, will be left out. I intend to spell out those categories and to ask the Minister to address them. I refer, first, to people who have received incorrect advice and who, therefore, are not receiving disability benefits, even though they are entitled to them. Secondly, there are those people who initially failed to qualify for DWA on income grounds but who, for a number of reasons, have suffered a drop in their income. They may well be entitled to housing benefit, community charge benefit, or even income support, but they will have forfeited their right to a premium. For instance, a person with a fluctuating disability may need to reduce the hours that he or she works. Hence, the earnings would drop. If, however, that person received the premium longer than eight weeks ago, he or she still cannot claim DWA.
Thirdly, there are those people who are in the process of claiming a qualifying benefit but who have not yet received proof of entitlement. The Minister made a point about speed. I make a point about exclusion, which is much more important. For example, this category includes blind people who are waiting for their registration certificate to come through. A fourth category consists of

people who do not qualify for the qualifying disability premiums, not because they are not disabled but because the rules for these benefits are so narrowly defined. For example, disability living allowance, which will be one of the main routes to receiving the disability premium, does not necessarily provide for all people with severe disabilities.
I have been circulated—as have, I imagine, other hon. Members—by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. It has provided a number of examples, collected from individual citizens advice bureaux, of people who, as the Bill is drafted, will for these reasons be excluded. I intend to refer to a few of them. There is the case of a single man with grand mal epilepsy who had been homeless for over a year. The local authority refused to accept him as being in priority need under the homelessness legislation. He had not obtained work throughout this period because of ill health, but he could have obtained a doctor's sick note declaring him unfit for work in the past 28 weeks—a condition that would have led to him qualifying for the disability premium. The exclusion of homeless people from entitlement to premium meant that this would have been a fruitless exercise. He would have been excluded under the Bill, as drafted.
6.45 pm
Another example is that of a single parent who suffered a serious criminal assault and had to give up work. She was told by her local social security office that she did not have to worry about submitting sick notes because she was a single parent and therefore did not have to sign on as available for work. That meant that until the citizens advice bureau intervened—which I am glad to say it did —she did not receive a disability premium. Therefore, she would have been ineligible to claim disability working allowance.
Those are clear examples, provided by the Spastics Society and NACAB, of significant and important groups of people who will be excluded.
On the question of the functional test, we and many others believe that there is a strong case to be made for the value of self-assessment—in other words, disabled people defining their own disabilities. The Government have proposed a six-month functional test for some people claiming DWA to establish that they are still disabled—and also for a few initial claimants. Surely that test could also be used in the initial claim by disabled people who, for the reasons outlined above, do not have the disability premium. At the moment, a disabled person may well be able to pass the six-month functional test but is unable to claim DWA because he or she does not have the proper qualifying benefits.
I return to my central point: that the situation which I have described is totally illogical. In its present form, the Bill will result in people with similar disabilities being treated completely differently, with one group receiving DWA because they happen to have the right proof at the right time, while others, who are no less disabled, will be prevented from claiming this benefit. Our amendment is designed to remedy that defect.
I expected the Minister to raise my last point—cost. Perhaps I ought to leave it out, since she did not do so. I believe, however, that I ought to refer to cost because the matter was raised by a Government Minister, Lord Henley, in another place. He claimed that the net cost would be about £200 million. Since DWA is supposed to


save the Government money—£10 million a year—I am extremely sceptical as to how that figure is reached. I do not believe that Ministers have given details of how it was calculated.
Our amendment is narrower than previous amendments. It is restricted to people who are already in receipt of means-tested benefits. In some cases, if they are awarded DWA, I should expect their total benefit to be less and in some cases I should expect it to be more, depending on their circumstances and earnings.
Moreover, one of the purposes of DWA—I stress this point to the Minister, since all Ministers have tended to forget it—is to provide short-term rehabilitative help in the transition from employment to full-time work. That is surely the objective of all of us. The net cost of DWA, will diminish in that circumstance, in accordance with the success of the rehabilitation. I ask the Minister to comment on the cost. I ask her not only to cost our amendment but also to give the basis of the Government's apparent calculations.
If Lord Henley is right, the huge sum that he mentioned will serve only to show the large number of disabled people who have a disability which puts them at a clear disadvantage in the labour market but who will not be helped by the Bill. That is the clear implication of the sum of £200 million—if Lord Henley is right. That sum is the cost associated with not helping those whom we would help. If the sum is anywhere near £200 million, a substantial number of people must be excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
The amendment is designed to ensure that several thousand disabled people who could have the advantage of DWA are enabled to benefit from it. I do not accept that speed and administration can possibly justify excluding several thousand people who otherwise would be included. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the amendment.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I support the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred. I have some experience of disabled people. For two years before I entered the House last November, I worked for a project in Glasgow by the name of Growing Concern. It sought to put disabled people into employment. The problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West outlined are very real ones. As he said, four fifths of disabled people who want to return to work could be affected. As the Bill is drafted, disability working allowance will not assist those people.
The Growing Concern project covered the whole of Strathclyde region and dealt with a population of 2·5 million people. I had not been involved with disabled people until I joined the project. One thing that I learnt was that emphasis must be put on ability rather than disability. I am worried that the way in which the Bill is worded puts an emphasis on disability and complicates it in a way that will not assist disabled people.
There must be a relationship between the Bill and other legislation. I cannot see such a relationship. For example, under the quota system 3 per cent. of the work force of all major employers should be disabled people. Last week I tabled a parliamentary question to the Scottish Office and was astounded to find that the health service in Scotland achieves only 0·2 per cent. employment of disabled people. That is worse than 10 years ago when it achieved only 0·5

per cent. On top of that we have the spectacle of the Department of Employment awarding Fit for Work awards to major employers for not achieving the quotas. Something could be done about the proportion of disabled people in the work force and I wish to relate that directly to the amendment.
The problem of definition has been highlighted. Disabled people are forced to register in order to qualify for certain benefits or to be assisted by the Department of Employment. The fact that they have to register puts a lot of disabled people off. They do not want to do so. They do not want to carry that label around. That could be simply altered by making people who are eligible to be registered qualify for assistance. The amendment has much the same aim.
Germany has imposed a far higher quota than Britain for several years. There is no escape from the German quota. No one can argue that the quota has damaged the buoyancy of the German economy. If employers do not achieve the quota, they must sub-contract a proportion of their work. If they do not do so, they must pay money to a national rehabilitation fund. Or the employer can do a combination of those things. There is no escape. The quota does not affect competition in Germany. Many disabled people, like everyone else, would swap the economy of Germany for that of Britain, even with the troubles that Germany has been through.
Even more importantly, there is a great untapped resource of disabled people who have the potential to make a contribution to the community and to lead a better quality of life than they are allowed to lead at present. The Bill misses out four fifths of them. As a result of marginal tax relief, people could lose 96p in the pound.
I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion because I am aware that we are short of time. I stress that if one word is important to disabled people, it is the same word as is important to us all. It is "dignity". All disabled people should be brought within the provisions of the Bill. They should not have to register and meet several conditions. I do not accept the Minister's argument that without the amendment implementation will be quicker. Unless the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West are adopted, the measure will be to the disadvantage of many disabled people and their dignity, but, above all, it will leave an untapped pool of talent in our disabled community.

Miss Widdecombe: This has been an interesting debate and several important points have been raised. The crucial aim of disability working allowance is to help people who are trying to transfer from incapacity to work. The incapacity must be one which prevents the person from working or does so to an extent that would normally be recognised as reasonable for an able-bodied person. DWA is not about disability per se. It is not about whether someone is deaf or blind, but about whether, as a result of those disabilities, he or she is unable to work. That is the crucial point.
First, we should make it clear that a large range of benefits—of which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned only a few—act as qualifying benefits or passports to DWA. They are invalidity benefit, severe disability allowance or a disability premium in income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit, disability living allowance—if the claimant is in receipt of it—an analogous benefit such as constant


attendance allowance in the war pensions and industrial injuries scheme, attendance allowance for those over 65, mobility allowance for claims made in the four weeks before A day or the allowances given to people who have an invalid carriage or car under the National Health Service Act 1977. We have sought to build a comprehensive range of qualifying benefits.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West raised several specific points. The first was the functional disability test. He suggested that what we are devising for repeat claims could be used for initial claims. We shall send a short questionnaire to about 40 per cent. of people who claim a further award. Such people will mostly be those who were receiving invalidity benefit before they claimed DWA and who have not passed a disability test for another benefit recently. But they will all be people who at one time had a long-term illness or disability which was recognised by such a benefit. That fact has been taken into account in devising the questionnaire. I am not convinced that the test that we have devised for people who have at some time had a long-term illness would be suitable for anyone who happened to be on an income-related benefit.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West also raised an important point about people who have a claim in progress which has not yet been assessed. I understand that, in their case, if the claim is ultimately decided in their favour, DWA will be backdated to the date of the claim.
As the hon. Member for Oldham, West said, some income support claimants cannot qualify for the disability premium. Homeless people do not receive premiums. People in residential care and nursing homes have their benefit calculated in a special way. But most people will probably satisfy the qualifying benefit test in a different way because they are already getting DLA.
I believe that it would be a complex business to devise rules to ensure that anyone with a theoretical entitlement to a premium, but no actual entitlement, could claim DWA. Potentially, large numbers of people on income-related benefits who had never established an entitlement to a disability premium could ask to be

assessed. To be assessed when there is no automatic passport would mean a medical assessment. It would mean a detailed examination of the individual's circumstances. There is no way in which that could be done speedily or efficiently. It would take a very long time, not only in administrative terms, but in terms of establishing that the claim was justified. That is the very thing that we have to avoid. I should not like to see the very efficient system that we have built in here corrupted in any way by a long-term, cumbersome, difficult procedure which a medical assessment of somebody who had never before established an entitlement to a disability premium would involve if there should be claims on any scale.
In that connection, I turn to the final point that was raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West—the cost. Obviously we cannot say that there is a definitive cost. With any new benefit, we can only make calculations. We are not talking here about people with flu; we are talking about long-term disablement, about poeple with problems arising from incapacity for work. If they did not have to demonstrate incapacity through recognition in respect of a previous benefit, there would be potentially a very large number of claimants, with all that that would involve in terms of administrative cost, quite apart from the benefits themselves if they became payable.
Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 28 would not be helpful. It would probably result in a very much more complicated and slow procedure than the one that we have devised, which is efficient and quick, and recognises, without any question or any further need to establish a claim, the right of anybody who has already established an entitlement to disability benefit.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the Bill; Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Secretary Newton, Mr. Irvine Patnick, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Miss Ann Widdecombe; three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Scott.]

To withdraw immediately.

Community Charges

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
That the draft Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 16 May, be approved.
This order is the final piece of business relating to local authorities' budget cycle for 1991–92. It signifies that we have reached the end of this year's capping round.
I make no apology for our having used our capping powers. Part of the Government's responsibility for the management of the economy is the duty to control public expenditure, of which more than a quarter is spending by local authorities. We also have a clear duty to protect local tax payers from unacceptably high bills. If we had not used our capping powers, we should rightly have been open to the criticism that we were shirking our duties.
Opposition Members say, "What about local accountability?" They say, "Let the councils themselves decide whatever spending level they wish"—a rare example of a laissez-faire approach by the Opposition.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: It is very early in my speech, but I will give way.

Mr. Fraser: Introducing the Local Government Finance Bill 1987, the then Secretary of State for the Environment said:
These proposals are fundamentally to restore local democracy.
He also said:
Whatever the figure, voters will know that it reflects the decision on spending which their council has made on their behalf."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1118–26.]
Why did he say that?

Mr. Portillo: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who bear the highest community charge in the land, believe that local democracy for them means the right of their council to charge them far more than most of them can afford. The people of Lambeth look to the Government to offer them some protection against a very high community charge. The hon. Gentleman and his Labour colleague from Lambeth half believe that themselves, although they may not wish to say so today.
The facts speak for themselves. We had the highest hopes that increased accountability would lead to sensible and prudent budgeting by all local authorities. It is a disappointment that, in the event, this has not proved to be the case.
In 1990–91, authorities used the change to the new system as a smokescreen to disguise vastly increased expenditure. Spending rose by 13·5 per cent., and over the two-year period o April 1991 spending rose by more than a quarter. In 1991, authorities overspent by more than £3 billion beyond what we provided for in the settlement. Such staggering increases in council spending cannot be justified. We have acted this year to prevent a repetition —and let no one doubt that we shall act again if necessary.
In the future, the risk of overspending might be even greater, given the fundamental and permanent shift from local to national taxation for the funding of local services

that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget with the switch to VAT. We have made it clear that we intend broadly to maintain the same balance between national and local moneys in future years. We are determined to ensure that the very substantial extra money that we are providing to local authorities is not frittered away in higher spending but continues to be used to keep charges down to reasonable levels.
That is why we have announced today that we shall soon seek stronger capping powers to bring authorities' budgeting below £15 million per year, into the scope of capping, should they budget excessively. Even this year's experience shows the need for that change. In the case of a district such as Derwentside, with a budget below £15 million, overspending added £83 to the charge this year; and in Harlow—another district budgeting below £15 million—overspending added £68 to the charge.
This year we have acted to achieve as much as possible by deterrence, and as little as possible by actual capping. Last year many authorities, including many Labour authorities, suggested to us that they should be told before making their budgeting decisions what capping criteria we intended to use. I was very grateful for that suggestion, and this year we did just that—we did precisely what authorities asked of us.
In October last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, announced the provisional criteria for selecting authorities for capping that he intended to adopt. Therefore, before authorities came to set their budgets, they knew our intentions for capping. If they budgeted excessively and were subsequently capped, they did so with their eyes open to the consequences. That approach worked. Of the 39 county councils, 37 budgeted below the intended criteria. Of the 36 metropolitan districts, 35 budgeted below the criteria. Of the 33 London boroughs, 31 budgeted below the intended criteria. That is a measure of how, where authorities have the will and the commitment, efficient and effective services can be provided within prudent levels of spending.
The result is that, in total, local authority spending this year is just £200 million or 0·5 per cent. above the £39 billion for which we provided in our settlement. What a contrast that is to the £3 billion-worth of overspending in the previous year.
None the less, despite all the warnings, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State judged that 14 authorities had budgeted excessively or had budgeted for an excessive increase over the previous year. He reached that view on the basis of the same capping criteria which he adopted and which gave effect to the intentions announced in October. On 3 April he therefore designated those 14 authorities for capping and proposed caps or maximum limits for their budgets.
The principles adopted were, and were intended to be, demanding. We do not apologise for that. But I stress that no council is designated if its budget is at or below its standard spending assessment. To those who allege inadequacies in calculating the SSAs, I point out that we have increased the SSAs in 1991–92 by an average of 19·4 per cent. over those of 1990–91 to give total standard spending of £39 billion. Events have borne out our view that that amount is fully sufficient to provide for local authority services.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: In defending standard spending assessments, will the Minister explain them to the people of Cornwall, who saw an authority that was always judged to be an under-spender suddenly become an over-spender one year, and then, this year, become an under-spender again, despite having spent more? Such arbitrary changes inevitably mean that local councillors, council officers, and people in general can only laugh at the way the system appears to have become complete nonsense.

Mr. Portillo: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to Cornwall county council?

Mr. Taylor: indicated assent.

Mr. Portillo: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is asking us to believe that whatever a council chooses to spend in any one year is the measure of what it needs to spend. The Government set out to identify the spending needs of councils by more independent and objective means. In the event, last year spending increased by much more than the Government would have wished. We deplore that, but what were we to do? Were we to ignore the fact that the increase had occurred or to make some allowance for it in the standard spending assessment for the following year? The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that we went so far in providing additional SSA to reflect what had already happened.
For those authorities which had been designated, we proposed caps taking account of all the information available to us. I emphasise that our aim was that where authorities were able to reduce their budgets by the full amount implied by the criteria, they should be required to do just that.
The designated councils were notified on 3 April of their designation, of the principles on the basis of which they had been designated and of the amount of our proposed cap. They then had a period of 28 days in which to tell us whether they accepted the proposed cap. If they challenged it, they had to suggest an alternative figure, together with a supporting case.
In the event, six authorities—Greenwich, Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, Reading and Somerset —accepted the proposed caps. The remaining eight challenged, and it is the final caps for those authorities that are dealt with in the draft order before the House. Of those eight, all but Stoke-on-Trent suggested alternative caps at the level of their original budgets. Stoke put forward a cap £0·5 million above its original budget.

Mr. Richard Holt: My hon. Friend has listed both my local authorities among those which have been capped and have accepted the capping, but I must tell him that the criteria used to produce SSAs, which he may describe in the House as independent and objective, do not appear so to those closer to the scene.
The county of Cleveland, in which both my local authorities lie, spends money as though it were going out of existence. It has just produced, as though out of a hat, £860,000 to waste on a public relations exercise. Yet the two district authorities, especially Langbaurgh, are treated extremely badly under the SSAs and come right at the bottom every year. It seems that once an authority gets to the bottom, it stays there. I do not believe that that is independent, fair or just. The Conservative-controlled

authority has accepted the capping this year, but I hope that, by next year, the SSAs will not be set in tablets of stone, but will be considered objectively and fairly.

Mr. Portillo: I hope always to be objective and fair in considering arguments put to me on the standard spending assessment. I should have had a little more sympathy with my hon. Friend if the two local authorities that he mentioned had been close to the SSAs—if one could have said they were within a whisker of them—but Langbaurgh proposed a budget 36·3 per cent. above its SSA, and Middlesbrough a budget 21·9 per cent. above its SSA. Even the caps that the authorities have accepted are more than 30 per cent. above that level in the case of Langbaurgh and 17·5 per cent. above it in the case of Middlesbrough. Doubtless during the coming year my hon. Friend and I will discuss the matter further, and I look forward to that.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the purpose of capping is to achieve value for money for the charge payer? Does not the fact that councils can honour the capping agreement and can cap budgets without cutting essential services or even staff show that there is much fat still in many district and metropolitan authorities and in county councils?

Mr. Portillo: It is certainly a source of great satisfaction to me that this year, by following the principle of deterrence and asking authorities in advance to reduce their own budgets, we have had to cap so very few local authorities. It seems to have been possible, despite much agitation, for most authorities to set budgets that fit in with our criteria.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I met delegations from each of the eight authorities in support of their written cases for a reduced cap. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State carefully considered the points made at these meetings, with all the other available relevant information, before taking his decisions. In the case of four authorities—Basildon, Ipswich, Norwich and Stoke-on-Trent—he decided that their caps should be set at the level originally proposed. For the remaining four —Bristol, Lambeth, Warwickshire and Wirral—he decided, in the light of their particular circumstances, that some relaxation was justified. As a result, we have decided to increase the caps for those authorities by £1·5 million, £3·9 million, £2·8 million and £3·2 million respectively.
Throughout the exercise we have had but one aim—to require a capped authority to reduce its budget to a level such that it would no longer be excessive or represent an excessive increase. Wherever authorities are able to make that maximum reduction—however tough and demanding it may be—we have required it of them. Only in cases where the circumstances of the authority itself are such that we could not, within this year, demand that of the authority have we decided to aim off and require smaller reductions.
I should make it clear that, in those cases where we have decided to grant an increase in the cap over our originally proposed level, we have done so only after the most searching scrutiny of each authority's circumstances. There is no question of it being an easy ride for an authority seeking a higher cap.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that the caps for each of the eight authorities stated in the


draft order are reasonable, appropriate and achievable in the light of all the circumstances of the authorities concerned. If the House approves the order today, it will then be for the authorities to decide how to live within their caps.
I have no doubt that we shall hear a great deal from the Opposition about the effects of capping, but I am equally sure that they will succumb to the temptation to indulge in the usual hyperbole and exaggeration that has characterised so many debates on this issue in the past. We are satisfied that councils, if they so choose, will be able to provide an appropriate level of services within their caps. If hon. Members ask what happened in 1990–91, I will remind them. I can do no better than quote from a survey carried out by the National Association of Local Government Officers. Last year, in the case of Basildon, NALGO reported:
no cuts required as a result of capping.
In the case of Bristol last year, NALGO reported:
no redundancies, no cuts in services, no charge increases.
And on Lambeth, NALGO reported:
managed to avoid closure of front-line services and no redundancies.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: In the case of Norwich, which is included in the order, the city council has made great play of possible damage to historic buildings, a cut in programmes to help those buildings, and so on. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Norwich city council has adequate money in its reserves to deal with those problems and therefore that its fears are exaggerated, and indeed false, in that respect?

Mr. Portillo: I understand that at the end of March 1990 Norwich held reserves of £3·9 million. My hon. Friend's authority is not the only one to face costs in relation to historic buildings, and Norwich has a higher standard spending assessment per adult than Exeter, Winchester, Hereford, St. Albans, Lincoln or Warwick. Yet all those authorities, despite their historic buildings, are budgeting below their SSA. Meanwhile, Norwich was planning to budget at £16·5 million—25 per cent. above its SSA.
In 1991–92 we find some old friends still budgeting well in excess of their SSA. In Basildon, the original budget was an extraordinary 121·2 per cent. above the SSA, although we might breathe a sigh of relief as the original budget for 1990–91 was 196 per cent. above SSA. Other local authorities also budgeted high. Bristol budgeted 44·5 per cent. above SSA. I do not need to tell the House that those are very far from meagre amounts and they mean important amounts on the community charge. It is difficult to envisage that any of the designated authorities could not be expected to make savings to reduce their excessive spending.
Among the familiar faces there are also some new ones. Ipswich, for example, set a budget 50 per cent. above SSA. Last year Ipswich escaped designation owing to the operation of the de minimis proviso even though its budget was 96·3 per cent. above SSA. This year we decided not to loosen the criteria by the inclusion of a de minimis proviso beyond an allowance of £10,000 for those authorities whose arithmetic was imperfect.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister has referred to Ipswich. Will he also comment on and explain his decision in relation to Stoke-on-Trent, where the spending level that the council planned was

more than £5 million below the level that his officials said was the right level of expenditure for last year? How does he explain how a figure that was correct for last year is far too high for this year, with the same social problems being faced by our city?

Mr. Portillo: The Stoke-on-Trent authority has the highest SSA per adult of all the authorities in Staffordshire, yet six of the districts in Staffordshire have budgeted within their much lower SSAs. Stoke is constantly making comparisons with other authorities, but it gets 13 per cent. more SSA per adult than Warrington, for example, which manages to stay within its SSA while Stoke's budget is £18 per adult above its SSA.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Talking about arithmetic being imperfect, I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that the Labour leader of Basildon council, councillor Peter Ballard, is apparently a qualified accountant working for the Labour party at its headquarters in the Walworth road. Perhaps that is part of the reason why its budgets do not balance either.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is a veritable fount of information, but I am bound to say that, although in setting the caps I took into account all relevant information, the point that she has just made was not one that I took into account.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you have received a copy of a letter from Mr. Peter Ballard of Basildon district council, which has been circulated among hon. Members this evening and in which he makes an urgent plea on behalf of his local authority because he is faced with having to cut services for the elderly and for young people, recreational facilities and a great number of facilities which are enjoyed by the general public.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It is already clear to me that that is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair. Mr. Portillo.

Ms. Joan Walley: rose——

Mr. Portillo: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Ms. Walley: On the point that the Minister has just raised about comparisons with other cities, will he not accept that we are making valid comparisons between our city and other major cities? How does he account to the House for the fact that, for example, Leicester city council has a budget spend of £237 per head of population, while our budget per head of population in Stoke-on-Trent is £128? He says that it is useless to make comparisons, but surely these figures do not square up. Stoke-on-Trent is as large and important a city as Leicester. Ours is one of the larger district councils. If Leicester can hold a budget of that kind, what is wrong with Stoke-on-Trent doing so? Why has the Minister got it in for Stoke-on-Trent? Why can he not give the amount of money that is needed to provide local services?

Mr. Portillo: I certainly do not have it in for Stoke-on-Trent. We try to assess the needs of each city not merely on the basis of how large it is or whether intuitively we think that it is like other cities, but in terms of a series of indicators which tell us whether it is more expensive to provide particular services in that city—indicators relating to social make-up, how many people are on income


support, what the proportions of people from ethnic minorities are, how many one-parent families there are. Those are factors which tend to make it more expensive to provide services—education, leisure, refuse collection, public amenities, and so on—in authorities such as the hon. Lady's.
To show that we are in no way mistreating Stoke-on-Trent, I remind the hon. Lady that in a number of programmes Stoke-on-Trent does extremely well. For example, its housing investment programme allocation was £17·7 million last year, and a further £14·5 million this year. So there are ways in which Stoke-on-Trent does extremely well—[Interruption.] The House would like me to make progress; I think that that is right.
In conclusion, I reiterate——

Mr. Lewis Stevens: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Portillo: I will give way, but for the last time.

Mr. Stevens: My hon. Friend has refered to some very large increases beyond the SSAs of many authorities. Having put forward those figures, he can perhaps understand the concern in Warwickshire. Last year its spending was some 10 per cent. above the SSA figure and this year it put forward a budget about 5 per cent. above. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand how Warwickshire feels. Compared with other authorities, it is not profligate in any sense.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend knows, following frequent discussions, that we have considered Warwickshire's case carefully. We propose an increase in the cap, but our proposal leaves Warwickshire's spending 3·6 per cent. above its SSA.
I reiterate the Government's responsibility to protect charge payers from the consequences of excessive expenditure by local authorities in terms of unacceptably high bills, and to ensure that individual authorities cannot, for whatever reason, endanger our wider economic objectives to the detriment of all.
Our approach to capping this year has been entirely vindicated. We shall not tolerate a repetition of the enormous increase in local authority expenditure which accompanied the introduction of the community charge. We have shown that our policy works by telling councils well in advance the levels of spending and the levels of increase that we would regard as excessive. Most of them have fallen into line without the need to cap. That is how we shall limit spending, and that is how we shall ensure that we can deliver the council tax at reasonable levels.
The Labour party proposes no restraint on local spending, which means that such spending would go through the roof. That is why the Labour party's figures for the rates to which it would return are not worth the paper on which they are written.
I have great pleasure in commending the draft order to the House.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is shocked at reports that Rajiv Gandhi has been assassinated and I wonder whether arrangements could be made for the Government to make a suitable statement, perhaps at 10 pm, to enable the entire House to express its sympathy

with Mr. Gandhi's family and with all the people of India, and to express the hope that Indian democracy will overcome this dreadful challenge. A statement would enable us all to call for calm among the Indian community in the United Kingdom and throughout the world.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the entire House will echo the hon. Member's words. The news has left us all with a sense of deep shock. I have heard nothing about a statement, but I am sure that the hon. Member's comments will be noted by those who sit on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) in expressing on behalf of the Opposition—I am sure that I speak for all in this place—the shock and horror that we feel on receiving such tragic news from India.
It is a measure of the extent to which the Government are assailed by difficulties on all sides—difficulties with the national health service, with the economy, with Europe and with education, and not only from outside their ranks but within them, too—that they are reduced to trying to grasp at the straw of claiming that at least with local government finance they have managed to wriggle off the hook on which they impaled themselves. However, even that modest claim can scarcely be justified. The truth is not that concern over the poll tax has subsided but that concern about other issues has increased. The real damage that was done to the Government by the poll tax debacle was to their reputation for competence. It is that competence which is now called into question throughout the range of Government policy on all other issues. It is the Government who could not get the poll tax right who now look so much less convincing on other issues.
Nor is it true that the poll tax saga is over. The Government may at last have steeled themselves to acknowledging that a terrible mistake has been made. However, they have done their reputation no good by dithering over what to do and by their continuing inability to get rid of the poll tax.
The Government's difficulties will become worse. Political commentators may assume that the poll tax fury has subsided, but they have not seen my mail bag over the past week or two nor, I suspect, the mail bags of many Conservative Members. Equally, commentators have not been present at my advice surgeries. I am sure that other hon. Members have detected a clear message from these sources. There is a rising tide of anger among many people who are beginning to discover, as this year's poll tax bills arrive, that they have been taken for a ride over the supposed £140 reduction in their bills. They are already paying a poll tax surcharge in the form of value added tax. Typically enough, half all poll tax payers, and especially those at the lower end of the scale, will not benefit from the full and promised reduction.
That is only the beginning of the troubles. It is starting to dawn on people that the abolition of the hated poll tax is still a long time away. The bills will keep on coming until 1993, according to the Government. According to most experts, the bills will continue to be presented until at least 1994, and possibly until 1996, according to the view of local government treasurers as reported in this week's issue of Local Government News. Anger will grow as it becomes clear that every year of the continued life of the poll tax


will preserve all of the tax's unfairness and inflexibility and will cost each household, on average, £140 more than it would have to pay under the Opposition's fair rates proposals.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: What would someone living in a house worth £100,000 in my constituency pay under the Labour party's fair rates proposal?

Mr. Gould: I advise the hon. Gentleman to consult the full table that sets out the rates that would be paid under our proposals.

Mr. Jones: They are not set out.

Mr. Gould: Oh yes they are. The figures are set out for a household with a property of average rateable value. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures bear close scrutiny. They are based on real figures, not on a 14-band exercise that required district valuers simply to make estimates. That exercise was then translated by lopping off the six top bands and rearranging the remaining eight into seven bands that bear no relationship to any exercise that has ever been carried out.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Gould: No, I shall not give way. I believe that I have dealt substantially and conclusively with the disputed figures.
Each year's continuance of the poll tax can only add to the problem of accountability. I know that the House is not normally disposed to take these matters seriously, but I invite it and all those who are concerned with local government to do so. Imagine the difficulty of collecting the poll tax. The problem is clear in Scotland, where it is becoming greater rather than easier. The problem will be exacerbated over two, three or perhaps four years by a perception that even the poll tax's only remaining friend, the Government, have abandoned it. There will be the further perception, assiduously propagated by Government propaganda, that the tax has somehow been abolished. The problem or the outlook for local government treasurers in trying to collect the poll tax in such circumstances is truly horrific.
It seems that the Government have been so preoccupied with the short-term political question of how to get themselves off the poll tax hook that we must assume that they have not yet bothered to consider the longer-term practical problems that their measures have produced. I urge Ministers, for the sake of local government, to pay some attention to the issues.
We have to consider the Government's capping measures in that context of uncertainty and confusion, which is exacerbated by today's announcement of yet further legislation intended to turn the capping screw even tighter.
It is fair to say that the Government have found it necessary—perhaps against the better instincts of some Ministers—to cling to the rock of capping for fear of being swept away in the sea of confusion which they have created over local government finance. Even in the field of capping there is nothing but confusion and inconsistency.
On this issue, as on so many other local government finance issues, we have been treated by the Secretary of State—how regretable it is that he is not present—to an

increasingly weary and familiar spectacle of him standing on his head, not once but 10 times over. He has a long record of being consistent only in his inconsistency on all those issues.
On 18 July 1979, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for the Environment for the first time, he promised to set councils free. He said:
We will sweep away tiresome and excessive control over local government. Local councils are directly elected. They are answerable to their electorate. They do not need, they do not want, the fussy supervision of detail which now exists.
What fine sentiments and how much we Opposition Members agree with him. Fine sentiments, which were almost immediately obstructed in practice by a Secretary of State who did more to impose central Government control on local government finance than any other Minister in history.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: I may well give way, but I shall complete this argument before I do so. The Secretary of State introduced grant targets and penalties which led directly to rate capping in 1984.

Mr. Oppenheim: rose——

Mr. Gould: Once I have dealt with the Secretary of State I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. He may have to remind me again if I overlook him.
At the end of the decade, and out of Marsham street, the Secretary of State had recanted. He wrote in The Times on 10 May 1990 that to introduce universal capping would be to negate accountability and would be
an act of centralised power outside our experience. On those grounds alone"—
he proclaimed—
it should be resisted.
But here is the Secretary of State—in spirit if not in person—not resisting capping but enthusiastically supporting it all over again. Here is a Secretary of State whose first act when he took up the reins of office again at the end of last year was to pursue a capping measure, a Secretary of State who has again introduced in his name today's measure and who gave a written answer to one of his hon. Friends announcing that further capping measures will be taken. It is little wonder that politicians, especially the Secretary of State, are frequently not believed and that the Secretary of State's reputation for honesty and principle is now in tatters. If he were present I would challenge him to say, here and now, whether he adheres to the view that he expressed a year ago. If he said that he did, I would ask him why he is acting in the contrary direction. If he said that he did not, I would ask him what had made him change his mind.
I am tempted to ask the Minister of State to explain on behalf of the Secretary of State, because he is clearly a man of some facility in following the twists and turns of his superior's thinking in these matters. But that might be unfair, even to the Minister.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that any future Labour Government will abolish capping and spending limits? Will he also confirm that his co-called fair


rates figures were based on this year's spending, which obviously involved an element of lower spending because of capping and spending limits? If that is so, how can his so-called fair rates figures be taken seriously?

Mr. Gould: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman simply does not understand these matters. We have established our position on capping on many occasions. Let us make it clear that our proposals for doubling the tax base, for rearranging the grant and for annual elections are a better and more democratic means of achieving the limits in local authority spending which we think appropriate.
Our fair rates figures are based entirely on like with like. We have accepted the same level of spending as the Government have established.

Mr. Portillo: I was intrigued by the phrase that the hon. Gentleman used a moment ago, when he said that it was a better way of achieving the limits which he thought "appropriate" on local government spending. What are those limits and why has he not told us about them before?

Mr. Gould: Because they are the limits that are decided as appropriate by local authorities, which are answerable to their electorate. That is a familiar principle to anyone who claims to believe in the principle of local democracy. I know that it is difficult for Ministers and Conservative Members to grasp that simple concept, but that is the essence of local democracy; and because we intend to strengthen it through our proposals for annual elections, we believe that we have a persuasive programme for ensuring that local electors are able to judge regularly and effectively the level of spending and levels of service which they decide that they want delivered for that spending.
There is a suspicion that the Secretary of State's reason for abandoning his earlier and better judgment on these matters and proceeding with these draconian proposals to cap local authorities was not that he was suddenly persuaded, in some deathbed conversion, of the great merits of capping, but that he was told it would be politically advantageous to use a capping mechanism, which it was hoped would corral and identify Labour authorities so that they could be uniquely accused of overspending.
Unfortunately, the exercise proved more difficult than it had seemed at first sight, and it proved impossible to come up with an objective set of criteria which identified Labour authorities only and excluded Conservative-controlled authorities. Try as they might, the Government could not perform that exercise. Today's announcement shows that they have abandoned any attempt to proclaim and protect the last vestiges of local government independence in matters of finance and that they are prepared to threaten large numbers of Tory-controlled administrations as well. Let us make no mistake: that is what universal capping will mean. As soon as the £15 million threshold is removed, large numbers of smaller Tory districts will be brought into the net. On this year's figures, no fewer than 20 Tory-controlled districts would have been capped under the criteria applied for this year. Elmbridge in Surrey would have had to cut 38 per cent. of its budget, Oadby and Wigston would have been capped to the tune of 19·7 per cent.—although the voters have intervened in the meantime—Arun by 18·3 per cent. and Epping Forest by 17 per cent. I could continue down the list.

Mr. Stevens: rose——

Mr. Gould: Deep cuts in services would have been needed to accommodate that exercise of the capping power, as I am sure the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) is about to say was true in Warwickshire this year.

Mr. Stevens: How many Labour councils, under the £15 million limit this year, would have been capped in the process?

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for concentrating on the large number of Tory authorities which figure in these small districts. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have considerable fellow feeling for them, given his spirited defence of Warwickshire a moment ago.
The capping exercise is arbitrary in another respect—the criteria for capping are based in part on the Government's calculations of standard spending assessment, which everyone knows bears little relationship to levels of expenditure and is substantially flawed, as is shown by the experience of a large number of authorities such as Greenwich. I notice that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) was anxious to suggest one or two other instances for consideration.
Some authorities, such as Basildon and Bristol, found themselves capped because of the arbitrary nature of the criteria, even though they did not exceed their SSAs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry; they found themselves capped because they had exceeded their SSAs but had reduced their budgets from one year to the next. That means that excessive weight is placed on that arbitrary criterion. Because the standard spending assessments of many authorities, such as Stoke, had been reduced from one year to the next, they were suddenly and unpredictably caught by the draconian nature of the capping powers that have been exercised.

Mrs Gorman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government allowed Basildon to increase its spending by 27 per cent. over last year so they have been more generous to Basildon this year? As Basildon was asking to spend over 191 per cent. more than it should have spent, the Government have been inordinately generous to it.

Mr. Gould: The hon. Lady should be clear about the distinction between changes in SSAs and the budget.
Conversely, the other criterion, based on the extent to which last year's budget is exceeded, has caught some authorities, such as Wirral, which has inherited budgets that have been held artificially low by previous administrations in earlier years. The arbitrary nature of those criteria is shown by the fact that, of the authorities that have appealed, 50 per cent. have had their capping levels changed. I do not object to the outcome of those appeals which, in themselves, are welcome. However, the fact that half the caps did not fit is a clear indication of how unreliable the capping criteria are.
Those measures are all taken to trim less than £40 million, or 0·1 per cent., off local government expenditure. That is only a fifth of the extra expenditure forced on local authorities by the Government through their hasty and last-minute move away from the poll tax and in favour of VAT. It is costing local authorities £200 million to recalculate and reissue those bills. We hear little about the Government being capped on those grounds.
That is a further illustration of a wider truth: the best judges of local authority finance and of the services that it


delivers are the local authorities themselves and the communities that they serve and to which they are accountable. The Secretary of State made that point eloquently just a year ago, and it should be apparent to anyone who genuinely believes in local democracy. If local people decide that they want——

Sir William Shelton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: I am halfway through a point that I am trying to make. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
If local people want, and are willing to pay for, a new nature reserve, better nursery provision or more low-cost housing, why should not they be able to vote for those changes and their delivery? That is what local democracy is about and it is being denied by the Government.

Sir William Shelton: Does the hon. Gentleman persist in saying that he would let Lambeth council spend whatever it wished? The hon. Gentleman talks of local democracy, but is it not true that his party has dispossessed 13 councillors, elected by the people of Lambeth, and has made them resign their seats from the Labour party? Am I not right that the main reason was that those councillors had a debate on the Iraq war and were rather in favour of Saddam Hussein? Moreover, some of them did not pay their community charge, exactly like some Labour Members.

Mr. Gould: I am sorry to be harsh with the hon. Gentleman, but I am always astonished that Conservative Members take the trouble to come into the Chamber, presumably to make a contribution, and then reveal their abysmal ignorance of the subject on which they choose to intervene. The truth is that the Lambeth councillors are still councillors and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads our proposals for annual elections and a quality commission, in which he will see that we have a complete programme for some of the problems that have arisen in Lambeth.
The Government's use of capping has virtually extinguished any remnant of true local democracy. Every aspect of local authority finance is now controlled from Marsham street, from the constraints on capital spending to the nationalised business rate, from the level of SSA and essential Government grants to the threat and reality of capping which, under the Government's new measure, will dictate to every local authority the size of the budget that they must set.
Ministers seem insensitive to the charge that they are thereby destroying local government. They appear to understand little and to care less. They preen themselves on having held down budgets and spending programmes, with no regard to the real damage that they have done to local services and to the people who depend on them. I suspect that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who has some experience in his constituency of what those cuts mean, would, at least behind the scenes, agree with me.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. However, I do not agree with his latter point. Although I disagree with the Government over standard spending assessments, the inefficiency of Langbaurgh council is a byword. Indeed, its

civic amenity has a bar with no financial controls, not even a till roll in the till. Until such matters are put right, Langbaurgh council is not a good example to pick.

Mr. Gould: How refreshing it is to hear a Tory Member who is at least prepared to make honest comments about a Conservative-dominated administration. The hon. Gentleman would agree with the general proposition and the principle——

Mr. Holt: No.

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman well knows that a Conservative budget was put forward.

Mr. Holt: No, it was not.

Mr. Gould: Yes, it was. It is clear that we shall not resolve this issue, but the hon. Gentleman will concede——

Mr. Holt: I must put this on the record yet again in the House. The largest party on Langbaurgh council was the Labour party. For some reason, four members of the Labour party defected and became independent. The Liberals then switched their support from the Labour party to the Conservative party, but, every time a budget proposal was put forward by the Conservative party, it was voted down by the Liberal and Labour parties together.

Mr. Gould: The House will conclude from that intervention that the hon. Gentleman does not dispute the fact that the Conservative party took the chair of the committee and a Conservative party budget was eventually voted through.
Let us make no mistake: whatever the truth of the position in Langbaurgh—which the hon. Gentleman may or may not be prepared to reveal—the Government's capping measures and the threat to use them have caused substantial damage and hardship to nursery school provision, lunch clubs for old people, legal, housing and welfare rights, advice centres, leisure and library facilities, youth clubs and the whole voluntary sector, which is the means by which so much local effort is made effective in the local community.
Ministers should not claim that those cuts were painless. They have hurt services and local people notice that damage and those cuts. Those measures could have been perpetrated only by a Government who, if they ever understood and valued local government, certainly do not do so now. There is little point in challenging Ministers on what they believe about those issues. They have shown beyond doubt that they have no beliefs to which they are prepared to adhere. Those Ministers continued to proclaim the great virtues of the poll tax until they were told to jump in another direction and then duly did so. They have not only no sense of principle or consistency but no sense of shame either. They are prepared to follow their Secretary of State in humiliating reversals and clear about-faces, in flat contradiction of their own personally stated positions. The Ministers act not on what they think or believe, but according to what, from day to day, appears to them to serve the interests of their own immediate short-term electoral fortunes. The evidence is that the electorate is as sickened by the spectacle as we are and will impose the appropriate penalty as soon as the general election is held.

8 pm

Mr. Michael Stern: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) along his last electioneering path, but will instead return to the subject of the debate and follow on from the remarks that I made in last year's debate on capping. I said then that the decision on whether the Government should cap was effectively determined by Bristol city council through its decision—which was the council's decision alone—to impose on the city a budget far beyond that which people could afford.
In order to explore one of the reasons which justify the Government yet again rescuing the long-suffering citizens of Bristol from the waste and jobbery that are now inseparable from Bristol city council, I shall concentrate on one aspect of the council's inflated budget—the way it sets about collecting public money.
Undoubtedly, the most resented part of the council's community charge announcement for the current year was that the community charge for Bristol included a sum of £40 for every charge payer to cover the costs of non-collection. That sum alone amply justifies a far more savage cap on the community charge than that imposed by the Government. That does not take account of other spending which, in the previous year, led Bristol to announce net revenue expenditure of about 185 per cent. of its standard spending assessment.
A study of Bristol's system for collecting the community charge shows that the problem goes much deeper than irresponsible overspending. This year, the collection losses in Bristol on both community charge and rates averaged £10 per adult. The average figure for comparable authorities was £7. Last year, the cost of collecting the community charge and administering community charge benefits in Bristol was £19·90 per adult. The figure for comparable authorities was £11·30.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I think I can help out here and correct the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure got his figures from the city treasurer. He is right to say that the estimated cost for the collection of Bristol's poll tax for the year was £19·90, but the probable outturn, which is based on the cost, is £14·65. The cost per head in the big 11 and the metropolitan authorities, which are comparable to Bristol, is £15 per head. Therefore, Bristol is bang on the Government target.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who quotes the city treasurer's figures, which have also been quoted to me. I am quoting the Audit Commission's figures, and while there is room for a difference of opinion between——

Ms. Primarolo: The treasurer's figures are based on the Audit Commission's figures. The hon. Gentleman should not be silly.

Mr. Stern: I was quoting the Audit Commission's figures, which are independent and would not be available under a Labour Government because I believe that the Labour party intends to abolish the Audit Commission.
The Audit Commission's figure for administering community charge benefits and collecting the community charge in Bristol was £19·90 per adult, and the figure for comparable authorities was £11·30. However, that does not mean that Bristol does not know how to save money. It saves money on collecting rents. At March 1990, its

accumulated rent arrears were 25 per cent. higher than those of comparable authorities. Above all, and perhaps most relevant to today's debate, the authority saves money on the staff that it needs to deal with its finances, which presumably includes collecting the community charge. At March 1990, subject to inevitable differences in classification, while its overall staff level was considerably higher than that of comparable authorities, it had 239 fewer financial staff than the figure that other similar authorities reckoned they needed.
The techniques used by Bristol city council to collect the community charge are not just inefficient; they seem carefully designed to create the maximum suffering among people who are entitled to benefits. One of my constituents has dedicated his life to bringing up a large family, every one of whom is severely physically handicapped. Despite having to live largely on benefits, he has nevertheless had the courage to play a considerable part in the local community. Not surprisingly, he is entitled to a high community charge benefit. The council's response was to withdraw that benefit without warning in November and ask him to pay nearly £45 a month—about four and a half times what he had previously been paying. He came to see me nearly in tears because there was no way that he could possibly meet that bill out of his benefit. When I queried the bill, his rebate was reinstated and the only explanation given was that it had been withdrawn as a result of an annual review.
Another constituent was continually being reassessed for the amount of community charge payable despite the fact that there was no change in his circumstances. When I asked why, I was told that there was currently a problem with the computer software interface between the benefits system and the community charge system which meant that some bills were produced unnecessarily. That was in January, nearly 10 months after the introduction of the charge. Clearly the problems have not yet been resolved because the council has just sent out huge batches of arrears notices without any previous explanation to the recipient. Some of them are for tiny sums, and some of them have been withdrawn as soon as they were queried.
One group of people who I believe are wholly blameless for this chaos are the council officers involved——

Mr. Gould: The Government are responsible.

Mr. Stern: The Labour party is not interested in protecting council officers, but Conservative Members are.
There is no evidence that the council officers have done anything other than their best with the resources that they have been permitted by their political masters. The many apologies that I have received on behalf of my constituents for some of the errors and re-errors—I stress that the re-errors affect some of the most vulnerable members of the community—must have been painful ones for councillors to write.
A combination of misdirection of resources and failure to collect sums due to the council can be laid only at the door of the councillors who direct the council's functions. Councillors Robertson, Hammond, Naysmith and Micklewright and their acolytes determined that it was not worth collecting the money due and that the machinery for collection should be so inefficiently applied. Whether they did so out of incompetence or out of a desire to discredit the community charge I cannot say, but their recklessness


with public money in Bristol makes it inevitable that the Government should step in to ensure that those councillors have less money to mishandle.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I hope that the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will not leave now because I wish to talk about the air of sweet reasonableness that he adopted. He had an air of calculated, warmhearted consideration for local authorities. I have never heard a Minister talk through his hat as much as the Minister did a moment ago.
The Minister said some fine words about Stoke-on-Trent and painted a pretty picture about what was being done to help. He showed that he does not know what he is talking about because Stoke-on-Trent has been heavily penalised by the Government. The Minister said that the Government's caps are reasonable and responsible. How can he say that about a system that hurts authorities that do not merit being hurt? The way in which Stoke-on-Trent has been hurt is shocking. I am surprised that both the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment can stand by their decision.
It has been rumoured that the local authority representatives who saw the Under-Secretary, as Stoke-on-Trent did in good faith, got nothing, while those who saw the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities got some concessions. That is only a rumour, but if it is true it shows a certain division within the Department, whereby the Under-Secretary was used as a foil, almost a bait. Everyone commented on how nice he was—of course he is a nice man of whom I am fond. However, he gave nothing, while the Minister gave concessions. Is there a little bit of political manoeuvring going on? I am prepared for the Ministers to deny that.

Mr. Portillo: The implication that my hon. Friend is a hard man and am a softie is absurdly flattering to both of us.

Mr. Ashley: I am afraid that the Minister has misunderstood even what I said, let alone the policy. The implication was that his hon. Friend was the soft man and that he was the hard man. Far from flattering the Minister, I was insulting him.
I am sorry that Stoke-on-Trent has been included in the Government's proposals. The authority has never been extravagant or profligate. The Government's object is to hit authorities, that have shown those tendencies. Stoke-on-Trent has set low rates for decades, owing to its low-paid workers and pottery industries. Because of that tradition of low rates, Stoke-on-Trent has no proper facilities. It is trying to change that, but is being prevented by the Government, who are adamantly capping the council's finances. That is an unrealistic action: Stoke-on-Trent is being hit as it tries to clamber out of the confinement of the current recession.
Stoke-on-Trent has been called a sick city—and rightly so. In half its wards, the average child will not live to experience retirement. Dereliction in the area is such that three times the national average number of houses have no inside WC and twice the national average number have no bath, while 53 per cent. of its houses are substandard.
Those are shocking figures. People may well call Stoke-on-Trent a sick city—although I prefer to call it a

Cinderella city because it has been neglected by the Government and left to rot, yet it could have a glittering future if given the right kind of help. In the next four minutes, I shall plead for help from the Government. Mine will be a short speech, but it will put a reasoned case. I ask the Minister to stand up to the Treasury, and demand a fair deal for Stoke-on-Trent.
Stoke-on-Trent's 1990 standard spending assessment was low, and there was no significant improvement in 1991. The final insult was a £410,000 cut in the provisional assessment. When I complained about the low SSA to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, he gave me an interesting answer. He said that the 16·6 per cent. increase was
some way above the class average".
"Class average", however, is a meaningless concept when applied to a town such as Stoke-on-Trent. The realistic and relevant criterion would be obtained through a comparison with the nine largest shire districts in England.
Stoke-on-Trent's assessment is £128. The top figure is £237, and the average is £164. Where is the sense in that? Why should one district receive £128 and another £237? There is no justice or fairness there. It is outrageous that Leicester, Nottingham, Portsmouth, Hull, Southampton, Plymouth, Derby and Bristol should all have higher SSAs per head than Stoke-on-Trent. The Government are penalising a city that has already been penalised. Let me make it clear that I am not criticising the other cities that I have mentioned; if they can secure higher SSAs, good luck to them.
I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has arrived in the Chamber. I am in the process of putting the case for Stoke-on-Trent—a special case, for Stoke-on-Trent has been treated very badly.
As I have said, I do not criticise those other cities. I believe, however, that the Government have been grossly unfair; the comparison that I have highlighted is appalling. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will accept that they are damaging Stoke-on-Trent, and preventing it from breaking out of the poverty trap that has been inflicted on the whole county.
As I said, Stoke-on-Trent is a sick city. It is also a poor city. Unless the Secretary of State acts at the eleventh hour, it will become a depressed city. Stoke-on-Trent's achievements are widely known. It has tremendous potential owing to the attractions of its skilled labour force, its excellent industrial relations, its good communications and its enterprising spirit. Tonight, however, it needs help very badly. Even at this late stage, I look to the Secretary of State to provide that help.

Sir Dudley Smith: It might well be asked what a respectable county like Warwickshire is doing in company like this—why it finds itself in the dock, awaiting sentence from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the House, along with all the old lags, by which I mean the profligate, high-spending Labour authorities which thoroughly deserve to be there. The answer lies in the grant settlement. In my speech, I shall submit that the county that I have the honour to represent—as do several of my hon. Friends who are present tonight—is being treated unfairly.
It is only fair that I quote from a letter, dated 13 May, which I received from my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. My hon. Friend wrote:
There is no question of Warwickshire being treated differently from other authorities, as I have said SSAs are calculated on general principles and differences in assessments reflect differences in characteristics. A relatively low SSA per adult does not penalise the authority in question, it merely reflects the proportionately lower costs faced by that authority.
That may apply in a number of instances. Certainly I regret the fact that my county council was charge capped, although, to be fair, I am sure that it is capable of further economies—scarcely any institutions are not capable of that, if they look into their hearts. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave us half a loaf, and listened to the spirited representations made by Warwickshire Members and by the county council. Given the overall position, however—especially in regard to education—I do not think that Warwickshire could cope at this stage without the budget that it set itself. I believe, for two main reasons, that it would be unfair to reduce that budget to anything below £278·3 million.
Firstly, unlike many other authorities, the council decided a year ago not to use the introduction of the community charge as a smokescreen to hide irresponsible increases in expenditure. On the contrary, it took a number of restrictive financial steps to help support national policy, and to protect the population of Warwickshire from a high community charge. It reduced service budgets by £5·6 million, which was more than what was considered necessary, and £3 million of that reduction was intended to be only temporary, such as that relating to maintenance of roads and buildings and teachers in-service training—services that the council wanted to restore. A strong cash limit was set for pay and price increases, actual inflation was £2 million more than the amount that was provided, but the authority had to manage within the limits. The previous year's £1 million efficiency savings was removed from the budget permanently.
The precept was further reduced by taking £3·5 million from reserves and balances. As a result, the precept increased 11 per cent., compared with an average of 17 per cent. among county councils that the Audit Commission regards as fairly comparable with Warwickshire. That was the second lowest increase among county councils. Taking the past two years together, Warwickshire's precept increase is one of the lowest of all county councils.
The plain fact is that if Warwickshire had not made those reductions and used its reserves a year ago, it would not be facing capping along with profligate Labour councils. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a fair man, but it is unfair that Warwickshire, which has behaved so reasonably, is being punished.

Ms. Primarolo: May we assume that the hon. Gentleman will be joining us in the Lobby to vote against the cap for Warwickshire?

Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Lady is right—I shall indeed. I do not blow hot and cold and fail to follow up my comments. I have much regard and respect for my right hon. Friend, who is a first-class Secretary of State, but he has been ill advised about Warwickshire by his officials

and there is only one way to register my protest. Therefore, with much regret, although I hate voting with the Opposition, I shall vote with them today.
My second point in defence of Warwickshire concerns the standard spending assessment formula, which is not only used to distribute revenue support grant but forms part of the criteria for selecting authorities to be capped. The formula consists of numerous elements, many of which Warwickshire regards as demonstrably unfair. I shall try not to weary the House, but I must give one or two important figures. The formula assumes that Warwickshire will earn £6·7 million interest on revenue balances and what are called usable capital receipts. But expected interest is only £1·5 million—a difference of £5·2 million. Revenue balances and expected capital receipts are low, so once again Warwickshire, which behaved sensibly last year in reducing its commitments, is being penalised for using reserves to reduce its community charge.

Mr. Stevens: My hon. Friend puts the case well. Does he agree that Warwickshire had a shortfall when the system changed from rate support grant to revenue support grant which is continuing from the previous year to this year? Grant increased by a modest amount this year, but that aggravated the problem which began in the first year of the scheme.

Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend is right. That is why Warwickshire finds itself in the dock. Officials have not paid sufficient regard to that aspect.
The formula assumes that Warwickshire's labour costs are lower than in the south-east of England. That, too, is unfair as most pay scales are based on national rates. For teachers and police officers—almost half Warwickshire's work force-significant local discretion is not only impractical but is not allowed. This part of the formula leaves the Warwickshire charge payer £26 worse off than a community charge payer in Oxfordshire. No one could say that Oxfordshire is Warwickshire's poor relation. The unfairness is compounded by the fact that, although the formula assumes lower labour costs in Warwickshire than in the south-east, it does not allow for higher costs in Warwickshire than in other parts of the country.
Another unfairness stems from time lags. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the M40 motorway was opened recently and should have increased Warwickshire's SSA by almost £1 million. That would have been valuable, but we are not sure whether the figures will be fed through even in time for 1992–93. I am advised that other time lags have had a similar effect.
The SSA formula for the police does not reflect unavoidable costs falling on Warwickshire as a result of its having far more long-serving officers than average, and of its having to pay higher than average housing allowances. My hon. Friends and I have been to see the Home Secretary about that.
The fire service SSA for Warwickshire is £2·6 million less than the 1991–92 budget—a difference of more than 30 per cent. The service has remedied the over-provision identified by Her Majesty's inspector and I am sure that he would not support further reductions.
The county tells me that the SSA formula means that the less permission an authority receives from the Government to incur capital expenditure on credit, the less revenue money it needs to use instead. The authority


regards that as nonsense, and so do I. It hits Warwickshire especially hard as the county has the second lowest basic credit approval per charge payer of all English county councils.
A year ago, changes to the Department of the Environment's formula for deciding the appropriate spending for each authority cost Warwickshire £13 million overnight. Once again, it lost out disproportionately. That was the second worst change per charge payer of any county council. On 31 March last year, Warwickshire's education budget was within 1 per cent. of the education SSA's predecessor. The next day, despite adopting a tight budget for 1990–91, Warwickshire was deemed to be overspending on education by £11 million. That was partly a result of the Department of the Environment's civil servants attaching unreasonable weight to additional education needs. Such volatility must call into question the credibility of the SSA system.

Mr. James Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend reflect on what may happen next year? Will he find time in his speech to ask Ministers whether they will carefully consider the SSAs for next year so that we do not find ourselves in the same position as this year?

Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend anticipates what I was about to say. He knows the line that many of us have tried to develop before. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is here because he is the man who can help us.
The credibility of the SSA system is being questioned by Tory, socialist and Liberal Democrat county councillors in Warwickshire and by chief officers. They all believe that something is wrong with the system as it applies to Warwickshire.
Plainly, the situation cannot continue. My hon. Friends and I must go to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fairly soon with my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-upon-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude). I appreciate that they are in a difficult position as they are members of the Government, but we must ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider Warwickshire in a different light in order to achieve fairness in the future. I think that we can reach an accommodation and I hope that we shall.
I very much regret that I have no alternative but to vote against the Government tonight.

Mrs. Gorman: Shame.

Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend says, "Shame", but it would be a hollow thing to make a speech such as I have made and then to abstain or walk away. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a perceptive politician. He realises the pressures generated in our county and why I shall vote against the Government. I shall do it not with delight, but with sorrow. In doing so, I hope that my hon. Friends and I will be able in due course to get a better deal from the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I join other hon. Members who have expressed their deep sorrow about what happened tonight in India—the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. It is an appalling thing to happen in the world's biggest democracy. In our democracy such an

event has not been successful in recent years, although very nearly so, and all hon. Members will feel strong sympathy for his family.

Mr. Robert Hayward: It happened to Ian Gow.

Mr. Taylor: I was referring to party leaders and the incident involving the Prime Minister which was not successful. We have dealt with democratic issues tonight, so, in that sense, it may be relevant.
The order is an admission of failure by the Government. The fact that it is being debated at all shows that the Government have failed to create a system of local finance that it can leave to local authorities to operate. The Government have not created an accountable system in the way that they claimed that they would when they first suggested the poll tax.
The order creates more chaos, adds to the overwhelming cost of the tax and will mean that some poll tax payers will have been faced with a multitude of bills within the space of a few weeks. Another round of capping shows how far the poll tax has failed to deliver on one of its prime aims, which was to increase accountability between councils and the electorate. It is also a reason—admittedly one of many—why the poll tax has had to go.
It must not be forgotten that the poll tax was supposed, in the Government's terms, to rescue voters trapped in high-spending Labour authorities. The Government's logic was that once all those who did not under the old rating system have the burden of huge bills faced huge poll tax demands, they would vote Conservative for lower bills. However, all that has happened is that those who were trapped by high rates are now hit by high poll tax. The local elections showed that across Britain the electorate is voting against the Conservative party which introduced those poll tax bills. The electorate is clear about where the responsibility lies.
However, it is not the promise of high bills and services that creates the Lambeths of this country—it is the electoral system. The Government have been prepared to sacrifice Lambeth residents and others to protect their fiefdoms in areas such as Wandsworth.
The figures for Lambeth, which is being capped again, show how one-party domination of the borough is not supported by the voters. In 1986 and in 1990, most of the votes cast in Lambeth were against the Labour party, but at both elections the Labour party was returned with a majority of seats. In 1990, Lambeth had the highest poll tax in the country and the majority of voters voted against the ruling party, yet Labour still controls the council. Therefore, the accountability argument is meaningless in the face of an unrepresentative electoral system. A fair voting system would ensure that, in party terms, the voters had the council for which they voted. I believe that that would inevitably mean that they were able at last to exercise control over the financial direction of that council.
Capping is thus a product of a corrupt and unfair electoral system combined with a corrupt, unfair and unworkable local tax and a grant equalisation system about which one can say, at the very least, that there is a suspicion that it arbitrarily helps some councils while penalising others.
Capping as a solution not only takes away local democracy, but means real cuts in services—cuts that will affect people's welfare, whether they are cuts in swimming


pools and libraries or cuts in social services and education. Poll tax capping is a particular evil if the council is also the local education authority because the education budget is usually the largest and is, therefore, inevitably the one most cut.
Let us consider Tory-run Warwickshire, for example. We have heard much about Warwickshire and I am delighted that at least one Conservative Member who represents a Warwickshire constituency will vote against the Government tonight. I hope that others will follow him because, as he said, they have good reason to do so.
Warwickshire county council set a budget of £278 million, which meant cuts of £7 million in services. The capping limit was £272 million, although that has now been changed to £275 million. At the £272 million capping level, 211 teachers faced redundancy, and even now it is estimated that 20 to 40 teacher redundancies will still be necessary—all this when class sizes in some schools are still in the high thirties. Other cuts include those in in-service training for teachers, in-school maintenance budgets, the removal of support for standard assessment tests and for national curriculum preparation. There will also be cuts in the youth service, in the careers service, in the peripatetic music service, in library services and in adult education —the list goes on. Warwickshire is not a high-spending Labour council; it is a so-called cost-conscious Tory council. So much for the practical effects of the Government's actions on councils run by their own party.
Wirral is a classic example of a council where people have been caught between Government policies and local Labour irresponsibility. Cuts of about £7·9 million now have to be made which could have been avoided had the ruling Labour group made savings last year. Instead, it decided to pick a collision course with the Government, and the Government were only too happy to oblige with a collision course of their own.
Of the £7·9 million in cuts, almost £5 million will be taken from the education budget. That includes a cut of £1 million from the Wirral metropolitan college—so much for the Government's statement yesterday on education if colleges are having their budgets cut rather than increased. The schools budget will be cut by £1·3 million. What type of system allows and encourages education to be a political football and which means that the children in the classroom end up the losers?
Those examples cause me to wonder what cuts we should be facing in Cornwall if the county's Tory Members had had their way. When Cornwall county council was setting last year's budget, the county's four Tory Members called on the Government to cap the county. Fortunately, they did not get their way, not least because the county was not by any stretch of the imagination an overspender. If the Tory MPs had had their way, Cornwall would be facing the same devastation of services suffered in the areas that have been capped. Would we be sacking teachers, cutting vital social services and leaving school buildings in bad repair? Would children have the books and equipment that they need? Would village schools have closed? What did those Tory MPs have in mind?
Inadequate Government funding means that Cornwall county council cannot spend what it needs to spend on education and cannot respond to the cry from parents for

the investment to improve decaying Victorian schools which do not have the facilities to meet the Government's minimum standards, to bring them up to the level that parents and children should expect. In an effort to keep the poll tax as low as possible, Cornwall county council has this year set a budget under the standard spending assessment, as it has done every year but one. That one year was not because it wildly spent money, but because, quite extraordinarily and without any discernible reason, the SSA suddenly dropped and the council became, we were told, an overspender instead of an underspender. We are told it is an underspender again this year. This is the ludicrous and laughable system which the Government call fair and equitable but which is about as steady and measured as a yo-yo. The fact that Cornwall county council was fortunate not to be cut back is shown above all by the comments of Conservative Members who represent Warwickshire and who have experienced just how harsh, unfair and unrepresentative is the reality of poll tax capping.
If the order were the final throw of a doomed system, it would not be so bad, but we know that we have years yet to come of the poll tax and that we have years yet to come of the capping system—if the Government get their way. For the country, the demise of the poll tax is not so much a sudden death as like an old-fashioned B-movie horror film in which the monster sinks back into the depths, swiping out all around and taking many with it.
Ministers must tell us tonight what will happen next year if there is a late election. Will the grant system continue unamended? Will we continue to have ludicrous, unaccountable decisions taken in Whitehall as at present? What will be the likely levels of the poll tax? Who will be capped next year? Above all, what will be the impact on council revenues of the additional non-payment resulting from people thinking that the poll tax has been abolished? How easy will it be for local authorities to collect payments from people when the Government now acknowledge that the bills are unfair, and unworkable, and should be abolished? The councils are being put into an impossible situation and the result will be even more chaos and difficulty.
The tragedy is that an alternative is available to the Government. An alternative has always been available. It is fair, accountable, used in other countries and recommended by many independent bodies including the Layfield committee. The alternative is a local income tax, which is the only system directly related to ability to pay, the only system that uses a structure that is already in place and the only system that uses the system of taxation that the Government use nationally because they recognise that it has a measure of fairness. Such a tax would win great local support and would allow devolution of control to local authorities which no other system can do because no other is fair enough. The link between the charge and the council would be there for all to see with a local income tax. The fairness between one individual and another would be there for all to see.
The Liberal Democrats can promise what the other parties cannot—that, under our system, we will not have capping because we will not need capping. We would honour what a local authority decided democratically because, under a fair electoral system and a fair taxation system, there would be genuine local accountability.
Under the council tax, the Government have already made it plain that they will thwart local democracy and


introduce vigorous capping powers. It is, as usual, unclear what the Labour party will do and how they will tackle their own party's extravagance and overspending. The truth is that Labour dare not introduce the one thing that would measure the accountability that it claims to want, which is a genuinely representative electoral system. It appears that the only option to which Labour can resort is the wholesale expulsion of its awkward councillors around the country.
The Government may claim that the powers in the order are welcome in the areas affected. Everybody who has contacted me from those areas and everybody from those areas to whom I have talked believes that the powers are anything but welcome. Where we see Conservative local authorities capped, we see Conservative Members denying that the powers are welcome in their areas. They point out how unfair and how harsh capping is. The truth is that the only reason that Conservative Members will support the measure tonight is that most Conservative areas have been removed from any threat of capping by the creation of a ludicrous, unrepresentative and entirely invented system to ensure that most Conservative councils escape. I hope that it will not be simply one hon. Member from Warwickshire who votes against the measure, but that it will be all of them and that they will take many of their colleagues with them.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I shall not fall into the temptation of following the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in a discussion of all the different methods of raising local government finance. However, I know that my constituents would not welcome a local income tax, which would be highly expensive for many of them and would set up new bureaucracies within local government organisations. The hon. Gentleman's party needs to rethink that aspect of its policy.
I support the Government's decision to cap overspending local authorities. I also favour such action in the case of Norwich city council, which takes in part of my constituency. I will be fairly critical of the Labour politicians who are in charge in Norwich, but that criticism is not intended to be a criticism of the many people who work in Norwich city council and who help to respond to my constituency cases—I say this in the presence of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who will, I am sure, agree—in a very efficient way. However, I shall be very critical of the Labour politicians who run Norwich city council.

Mr. John Garrett: The hon. Gentleman represents part of the city of Norwich which may explain why his visibility in that great city is within a glimmer of vanishing point. Before he starts his attack on Norwich city Labour councillors, will he agree that that city has been under Labour control for 55 years, that in the past two May local elections the Tory party came third and that the representation of Tory councillors on Norwich council is two or three—I cannot remember which—and will almost certainly vanish completely within the next couple of May elections? Is not that a verdict by the people of Norwich on the councillors whom the hon. Gentleman is about to attack?

Mr. Thompson: I should be very much out of order if I were to pursue that point. However, the hon. Member for

Norwich, South will know that the Labour vote fell in the most recent local elections in the city part of my constituency. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in two successive general elections, the Tory majority in my part of the city of Norwich——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the order.

Mr. Thompson: I have to do enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, to respond to what the hon. Member for Norwich, South said. The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong in every statement. However, I will follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, and return to the order.
I said that I was about to be critical of the Labour politicians who control Norwich city council, but I do not think that this is the right place for me to be critical of my colleagues in the House of Commons, so I shall confine my remarks to the local scene in Norwich.
The city council has chosen to penalise local residents in my constituency by exceeding its target by 25 per cent. and by breaking the £15 million ceiling that the Government have rightly put on its precept. I support, therefore, the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to intervene to protect individual community charge payers in Norwich and to protect the interests of taxpayers as well. That is inevitable and it is right. After all, if Norwich city council had been left to its own devices, my constituents in the city part of Norwich would have suffered. The hon. Member for Norwich, South does not have my advantage. Within my boundaries, I also have the Tory authority of Broadland district council, which has held down its community charge to the benefit of my constituents.

Mr. John Garrett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thompson: I will not give way again.

Mr. Garrett: rose——

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman does not like it. I am not giving way.

Mr. Garrett: rose——

Mr. Thompson: I have given way once and I am not giving way again. The hon. Gentleman does not like my referring to the comparison between Tory-controlled Broadland district council and overspending Norwich city council.

Mr. Garrett: What about the services?

Mr. Thompson: I will not be tempted to talk about the swimming pool in the Tory-controlled area and the lack of good facilities in the Labour-controlled area.
My constituents, thanks to Norwich city council, would have had to face a community charge of £433, which was excessive by any standards. Thanks to the intervention of my right hon. Friend and other Ministers, and thanks to the intervention of the Government, that has been decreased through the various reduction schemes to £293. As a result of this order, the figure has been further reduced to £277. Whatever Opposition Members may say, the people who matter are the individuals who receive and pay for the services of the local council. Those individuals will benefit from the order as they have benefited from the Government's earlier intervention.
It is the responsibility of the Government and the House to determine the overall level of public spending and taxation. A major share of public expenditure, just over £39 billion in 1991–92, is at present in the hands of the local authorities. The Government have rightly been generous in their financial settlements for local authorities in 1991–92. An extra £3 billion in grants and the distribution of the uniform business rate has been provided. The community charge reduction scheme, which is worth some £1·3 billion, has also been put in place. I make no apologies for quoting those figures. Tonight's debate centres on sums of money and the help that the Government have given for the benefit of our constituents. There has been an injection of some £4·3 billion in the Budget announcement aimed at cutting the community charge by about £140 per head.
Therefore, if we look back to 1990–91, there is no doubt that councils, not just Norwich, have set their community charges at too high a level to be tolerable. But there is no doubt either that because of the Government's action the real difficulties faced by a number of my constituents last year will be effectively mitigated. I say in the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister that I am grateful for the help that has been given to my constituents who are having to pay the charge. I find it difficult to understand why Opposition Members do not look at the matter from the point of view of individual constituents rather than from the point of view of those who are running the council. I cannot press that point too strongly. The changes, together with the prospect of the new council tax, are welcome to me and to my constituents.
Norwich city council has been one of the beneficiaries of the Government's generosity. Its spending target has been increased from £10·3 million in 1990–92 to more than £13 million in this financial year. A rise of some 28 per cent. in SSA is well above the rate of inflation, however that is defined. The SSA formula applies criteria across the country to reflect each authority's social, geographic and demographic characteristics. Therefore, claims by Norwich city council that the formula is in some way arbitrary are wide of the mark. The total external finance from the combination of the business rate and revenue support grant increased from just under £40 million last year to more than £45 million in 1991–92—a rise of some 14 per cent. for the area within Norwich city council boundaries. Therefore, there is no truth in Norwich city council's claim that it is in some way badly treated in the distribution of Government support.
A case is put forward by Norwich city council to justify its overspending, but that case needs close examination and is highly suspect. It claims to limit its call on the poll tax to around the annual rate of inflation, but the increase in community charge precept of some 10·7 per cent. was agreed in March when the retail prices index was running at just over 8 per cent. It is now running at just over 6 per cent. and is still falling. That destroys that argument. Therefore, the community charge per head in Norwich is up nearly 12 per cent. The truth is that Norwich has set the community charge for the people of Norwich well above the rate of inflation and it knows that. That is one reason why we have the order before us tonight.
I want to say a brief word about capital funding, about which there is some discussion in Norwich. We hear

complaints from the council that it is unduly restricted in using its capital receipts from council house sales to fund new building—a point that it makes continually in public debate. But the council operates a covert policy to discourage people from exercising their right to buy. The housing committee in Norwich frequently increases the valuation of properties made by its own staff or by professionals—a matter that has already been raised in parliamentary questions by me. The record of determination by the district valuer shows a consistent overturning of the council valuations as being too high. The council also effectively deters some housing associations from operating in Norwich by giving priority to its own applications for approval. Therefore, the crisis in capital funding about which the council so often cries is a crisis of its own making. It is important that that point should be made this evening.
As I said in an intervention at the beginning of the Minister's speech, we have heard before about a threat to Norwich's historic buildings and role as a regional capital if capping were to take place. No one is a more ardent supporter of the preservation of historic buildings in Norwich than I am. That is not a political issue. Anyone who tries to make it a political issue is trying once again to mislead or deceive the public. We have had enough of that. We all want the preservation of historic buildings in Norwich or anywhere else.
The planning committee in Norwich—it is worth listening to this because it is important and I am about to produce figures—plans to spend some £17,160 on historic buildings and monuments in the year ending 31 March 1992, some £35,950 on city towers and walls and some £96,330 on closed churchyards. If those figures are added together, we are talking about a figure of a completely different order of magnitude from the £1·5 million which is involved in the order. As I said earlier, and as my hon. Friend confirmed, Norwich has adequate reserves to cover such expenditure. It is no good Norwich city council deflecting the debate from the main issue to that of the preservation of buildings, which we all support.
It is equally unlikely that the role of Norwich as the focus of civic life, entertainment and sport would be remotely threatened by the order. Every hon. Member in his heart of hearts knows why the order applies to Norwich city council and to the other Labour councils involved. There is no need for dramatic consequences if Norwich city council acts responsibly.
The fact is that the record of Norwich city council—which, as the hon. Member for Norwich, South said, has been in control for far too long—has not been encouraging. The business of that council is conducted largely, in my experience, to enable party political points to be made on behalf of the Labour party generally. High spending has been, and remains, part of that approach. That is unacceptable to my constituents. That is why there was a fall in the Labour vote in the recent local government elections and an increase, despite any delusions that the hon. Gentleman may harbour, in the Conservative vote in Labour-held city wards. If he is complacent about his majority of 300, I think that he should spend a little more time looking after his constituents rather than coming here to make unwarranted attacks on the Government, or on his colleagues.
It is worse than that. Norwich city council is showing an ambition to take in the fringe areas of Norwich and bring them under Labour control. My constituents in Old


Catton, Sprowston, Hellesdon and Thorpe St. Andrew would resist that ambition, for the reasons that have been made clear this evening. I shall support them in resisting that ambition of the Labour party.
For that reason, I am pleased to support the order. I shall therefore be pleased also to vote for it. I am sure that Norwich city council's record is exactly as I have described it. The lessons will be learnt at the next general election.

9 pm

Ms. Joan Walley: Having sat through this debate, I shall have great difficulty going back to Stoke-on-Trent and explaining to my constituents why the Government have chosen to charge cap the city of Stoke-on-Trent. The more I listened to the debate, the more I remembered all the meetings that the leaders of Stoke-on-Trent city council and the leaders of industry and commerce in the city have had with previous Secretaries of State for the Environment and with the present Secretary of State. We told the Secretary of State that the city urgently needed more money so that it could deal with its problems, but we got absolutely nowhere. The Secretary of State is not even in the Chamber to listen to the debate. He intends to go ahead and charge cap the authority, but we have not been told why Stoke-on-Trent is to be charge capped.
The whole procedure is a sham. No recourse to appeal will be open to the city, following the debate. It is clear that, with a few honourable exceptions on the Conservative Benches, there will be a party Whip and that Conservative Members will vote through this huge reduction for Stoke-on-Trent.

Mr. Hayward: The hon. Lady referred to a Whip on the Government side of the House. Can she confirm that there is a Whip on her side as well?

Ms. Walley: It is not for me to confirm or deny whether there is a Whip on this side of the House. That a Conservative Member should make such a cheap gibe when we are talking about charge capping the city of Stoke-on-Trent shows that the Government have no arguments to put forward and nothing with which to make their case.
We heard earlier that the order is all about saving money, but that makes a mockery of local government. The debate is all about saving the Government's economic policies. How can a Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the Government have to make all these savings and show that their economic policies are working by curbing local government spending? The introduction of these caps will save £9·7 million out of a total budget of £39 billion—and the saving will be made entirely at the expense of a few constituents, including those in Stoke-on-Trent.
The Minister also said that the cuts for Stoke-on-Trent are affordable and achievable. When he sums up the debate I should like him to tell us how they can be achieved for Stoke-on-Trent. I do not think that either the officials sitting in the box reserved for them or the Ministers have scrutinised——

Madam Deputy Speaker: As a Front-Bench Member, the hon. Lady should know that she should not refer to officials or to anyone not in the Chamber itself.

Ms. Walley: I am grateful for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. John Garrett: It does not matter.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It matters very much indeed.

Ms. Walley: Ministers and the Secretary of State have formulated the standard spending assessment in a way which does not enable the budget of Stoke-on-Trent city council to be closely scrutinised. The SSA has been formulated without access to what is happening in the city. It does not have regard to the everyday problems that my constituents face.
Contrary to what we heard from the Minister, Stoke-on-Trent is not a profligate authority. It is a low-spending council, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Even last year our limit on spending was £33·7 million. We could have had £36 million, but the Government have decided to set a cap of £25·8 million although our submission was for £28 million. I should like the Minister to say why our expenditure has been so substantially reduced this year compared with what the Government were prepared to allow last year.
The Minister has told us that there has been a staggering increase in the city's spending, but that does not fit the facts. In Stoke-on-Trent it costs £2·7 million to collect the poll tax whereas it cost £445,000 to collect the rates. The Government introduced an uncollectable tax. It is their fault that we have to find an extra £2 million just to collect the poll tax. So the Government are responsible for the overspending.
In an earlier intervention, I said that Leicester city council has £237 per head of population to spend while Stoke-on-Trent has £128. Although in one respect it is not helpful to make comparisons between councils, Stoke-on-Trent and Leicester city councils are both major district councils and some comparison should be made between the amount of money that Stoke-on-Trent city council has to spend and that which similar councils have.
As though all the things that I have mentioned were not bad enough, in the middle of January we suddenly had the news that Stoke-on-Trent was to lose a further £400,000 as a result of changes in the way in which the standard spending assessment is calculated. Those changes affected Stoke-on-Trent city council more than any other council.
Stoke-on-Trent city council is not a partnership authority. We do not have access to other money to make up for the shortfall. We do not have urban aid projects. We have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that Stoke-on-Trent is a sick city. Independent research has shown that the amount and degree of ill health in our city is worse than anywhere else in the country. North Staffordshire district health authority has had visits from the Minister for Health, who gave assurances that she would make representations across Government Departments. She said that she would raise the case with the Department of the Environment and suggest that a way should be found to increase the amount that we can spend on health promotion and prevention of illness in response to the shocking findings to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred earlier, including the fact that more than half the people in some electoral wards cannot hope to receive their old age pension because they will die before they are even entitled to it.
Stoke-on-Trent city council has done a considerable amount to provide resources to improve the health of people in the city, but initiatives such as the "Colcloughs" series on local radio which pioneers health education and attempts to make people take account of healthy eating and healthy lifestyles and tackle the environment-related illnesses in the city are likely to be cut or damaged.
In the past six months, unemployment has increased dramatically, particularly in manufacturing industry and in the ceramics and allied industries, for which our city is world renowned. The Minister referred earlier to our housing investment programme and how well it had done. But 53 per cent. of our properties are unfit, and it is essential that that be recognised in the Government's housing allocation. It must be reflected in the amount of money that the city council is allowed to spend. The demands that the city's housing problems make on its housing budget mean that the many disabled people in the city who have rightly applied for improvement grants and for assistance with disablement adaptations are not being catered for because there simply is not enough money.
Despite the absence of urban aid funds, Stoke-on-Trent has some very good voluntary organisations. I pay tribute in particular to the citizens advice bureau for its work. I understand that it enjoys a national reputation for the kind of advice that it gives to people in a state of poverty. There is a strong likelihood of an across-the-board reduction in grants to voluntary organisations. How can the Minister justify taking this amount of money away from Stoke-on-Trent city council? By cutting the grants to voluntary organisations, he is preventing them from enabling people to secure extra entitlement.
How does the Minister square the new legislative responsibilities of local authorities, including those under the environment protection legislation, with the funds that are available to them? Stoke-on-Trent city council, through its highways department and its environmental health department, is spending more than £63,000 just to discharge its new responsibilities in respect of litter and other aspects of environmental health. How does the Minister expect us to find that extra money when he is taking money away? The city of Stoke-on-Trent has had years of underspending, and there is a lot of catching up to be done. The order will force us into a poverty trap from which we shall be unable to escape.
The standard spending assessment is flawed. Even the Conservative opposition on Stoke-on-Trent city council agree that the manner in which it is fixed is flawed. They agree with 83 per cent. of treasurers throughout the country that this is not the way to calculate the amount of money that local authorities should receive from central Government. Why does the Secretary of State not take account of the health disparity in the city?
I find it very difficult to advise my constituents as to what will happen next. This debate is our last hope of convincing the Secretary of State that capping should not go ahead. Once the decision has been taken, there will be no redress. Parliament will not consider the matter at a later stage. But, day in and day out, the citizens of Stoke-on-Trent will have to live with the decision, and to meet the cost. Council leaders, trade unions and voluntary organisations will have to make very painful decisions. In the midst of the present Government-inspired recession,

local industry will suffer. There will be less money for development of the local infrastructure, on which industry depends.
For all those reasons, I urge the Government to take account of the problems faced by the people of Stoke-on-Trent. It is an almost vindictive act—the Government are forcing through a formula without any regard whatever for the public services on which we all rely.

Sir William Shelton: I rise once again to speak for my constituents in the infamous socialist borough of Lambeth, where even the Labour bosses have turned 13 duly-elected Lambeth councillors out of the Labour party—out of the positions into which they had been voted. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) had the nerve to speak of trusting local government, and of true democracy in local government. I was astounded by that. Thank heavens that the Government have come to the rescue of my constituents.
The community charge first announced for this year by Lambeth was £590 a head. The £140-a-head from central Government funds reduced that figure to £450 a head. The capping order, which I shall support tonight, brings the figure down to about £420 a head. That is still outrageously high—as far as I know it is the highest in the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] My hon. Friends tell me that it is. I welcome the cap, which will protect my constituents. The hardship that a charge of £590 a head would have caused can only be imagined.
I must confess to my hon. Friend the Minister that I welcome the decision to fix the cap at £311 million rather than £307 million, which will give Lambeth about £3·9 million more. As a result, Streatham pool will remain open. More than 11,000 people signed the petitions in about four weeks, and now the pool will stay open, thanks to the Government and to the pressure exerted by my constituents—and thanks, in some part, I acknowledge, to the good sense of some Lambeth councillors.

Mr. James Pawsey: Is not my hon. Friend being unduly modest? Is it not fair to say that he, too, should take considerable credit for keeping the swimming pool open?

Sir William Shelton: I have always regarded my hon. Friend as a wise and sensible man.
I welcome the community charge reduction scheme. It is almost unknown in my constituency, and, I suspect, equally unknown throughout the country. Yet it will have a profound effect on many of my constituents. In Lambeth in 1989–90 the average rates bill was £516. Any two community charge payers living in what was then an averagely rated house or flat would pay only £568 instead of £840. Any two people paying half average rates would pay only £310 instead of £840, and two people who paid a quarter of average rates would pay £181 between them instead of £840. Those are tremendous reductions. I hope that Lambeth council is aware of the scheme and will implement it.
Lambeth council claims that, because of what it calls the absurd capping, it is having to make cuts across the board. Yet Government funding for Lambeth for 1991–92 is 23 per cent. higher than it was last year—£296 million instead of £240 million. Lambeth also receives some £300


per head more than do residents of Wandsworth, the neighbouring authority. Hon. Members can compare the two boroughs.
Education funding, too, is 18 per cent. higher—£125 million this year as opposed to £105 million last year, plus £6·5 million or so in Inner London education authority transfer grant. I suggest that the Government should consider ring-fencing education budgets. Lambeth council has raised its education budget. It is making cuts across the board, especially in education, despite the fact that it has had a 23 per cent. increase—probably about 15 per cent. or more in real terms.
Adult education is suffering gravely. Teacher numbers have been reduced. I spent this morning in an infants and primary school and the staff are desperately worried. They have been told that there seems to be no provision for special needs in Lambeth education because it is denied that some children have special needs.
I understand that we have the longest waiting list in the country in connection with the right to buy. If it is not the longest, heaven help those that have longer lists.
The services were bad enough before, and I suspect that they will become even worse. I do not know whether it is due to present or past inefficiency and incompetence, but the result has been a debt burden of tens of millions of pounds. It can be estimated at between £40 million and £120 million, depending upon which way it is calculated. Certainly it is so large because of uncollected rates, uncollected rents and uncollected community charge. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) is enjoying my speech so much. If he talked less, he might listen a bit more.
I am told that because of this vast debt from the past only 60 per cent. or less of the community charge is being spent on Lambeth services, the remainder being spent on servicing the debt around Lambeth's neck: 45 per cent. goes on debt arid 55 per cent. on services. So I guess that it is due to past and present incompetence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), when he opened the debate, said that constituents look to the Government for protection and that that is why we are passing the capping order tonight. There is a rising cry of despair in my constituency. My constituents are asking me why the Government cannot protect them by intervening in Lambeth. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Labour London manifesto in which there is reference to something called quality control—I am not quite sure what it is—which, it says, will offer just such intervention and protection in councils such as Lambeth.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider exactly what is going on south of the river in my constituency, which is not far from here. Will my hon. Friend intervene soon in housing and in education to protect my constituents? That is my plea to him and my right hon. Friend.

Mr. John Fraser: I wish to start with a protest at what I regard as the discourtesy of Ministers for education and the environment. The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton), my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and I have met several delegations, particularly of teachers, parents and governors, concerned about the effect of rate capping on education services in Lambeth. We agreed unanimously to

approach both education Ministers and environment Ministers to represent Lambeth's case in respect of the cap. Representations were made to the Department of the Environment by the hon. Member for Streatham.
Although it is clear from some of the speeches made today that Ministers have received personal representations from Conservative Members about the capping of their authorities, they have refused to see the all-party delegation of Members of Parliament from Lambeth. It is a great pity that we have been treated with that degree of disrespect. It was not a particularly Labour-party point of view that we wanted to put—it was an all-party point of view reflecting the views of parents, governors and representatives in Lambeth.

Mr. Portillo: I am not sure that I am wholly familiar with the circumstances, but two issues are at play here. We may have overlooked an early letter from the hon. Gentleman—if that is so, I apologise to him—and his subsequent approach may have been out of time, when the consultation period had closed. Whatever the circumstances, I confirm that in principle we are absolutely willing to meet hon. Members who wish to make representations about capping during the period that we are out for consultation on capping. If there has been any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, I apologise unreservedly.

Mr. Fraser: I accept the apology—one always accepts an apology in this place—but the Minister asks for the prerogative of mercy after the execution has taken place. I hope that it does not happen again.
Governments of every political complexion will from time to time wish to restrain the level of local authority spending, for two principal reasons. The first reason is that high levels of local government taxation or central Government taxation are politically unpopular. I have never argued for high levels of taxation in Lambeth. Those whom I represent cannot afford that sort of taxation as they are extremely poor people. High levels of taxation are politically unpopular, as colleagues of mine such as Eric Deakins became aware during the 1987 general election. Secondly, high levels of local government taxation can punch a hole through the Government's economic strategy and cause rises in the rate of inflation. That was the lesson of the Labour Government in 1970. That Administration paid the penalty for the increases in rates and rents introduced by many Conservative-controlled local authorities.
What can a Government do? They can do one of three things. They can pay more money to reduce the level of rates or poll tax, as the case may be, as the Labour Government did when they increased rate support grant levels to about 60 per cent. The level varied but it was about 60 per cent. when we went out of office. That is exactly the action that the present Government have taken. They have seen the error of their ways and provided a grant which is to be paid for by an increase in value added tax—a grant of £140 per poll tax payer.
Secondly, there is the democratic sanction—the argument for which was advanced on Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill on 16 and 17 December 1988. That argument was advanced today by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench.
The third option is a statutory restriction of the type that we are discussing today. The fact that we are


discussing the order at all is a sign of the Government's failure. When the 1988 Bill was passing through the House we were told that capping would cease, that the subsidy option would come to an end and that the answer would be provided by a sort of angry democracy because local government finance was to be arranged so that it would be possible to penalise the poorest members of the community, who would then be moved to vote against high-spending local authorities. But that has not happened, and that is why the order is a measure of the Government's failure.
The present limit on expenditure as a result of the amendment of the draft order is to be £311 million for Lambeth, which works out at about £1,800 per adult member of the population. There are, however, considerable differences over the local population. There are the most recent census statistics, the estimates of the local authorities and the estimates of the Department of the Environment. As I have said, however, the expenditure per adult member of the borough is about £1,800.
Actual expenditure was £296 million—£11 million above the capped expenditure level of £285 million. If we are to compare one year with another, we must take actual expenditure into account. The effect of the new rate-capped limit means that Lambeth will be able to spend about £15 million more this year than it spent last year, but the increase in expenditure year on year is only 5 per cent. Comparative expenditure would have increased the rate of inflation, which went up to about 9 per cent. Inescapably, therefore, last year's cap and last year's actual expenditure must imply a cut in services of various kinds of about 4 per cent.
Unfortunately, the cut in services is rather greater than the figures would suggest because Lambeth has been forced to provide for past bad debts. I shall not go into the reason why some of them were incurred. It was partly due to previous Government legislation over rates penalties. Be that as it may, however, part of the £311 million cap represents a provision for past bad debt and not expenditure on services. If one takes out the provision for debt, the real cut in services in Lambeth is in the region of 8 or 9 per cent., which is a very severe cut indeed.
It is no use the hon. Member for Streatham saying that Lambeth is getting more central Government assistance for its expenditure. That is absolutely true and we do not disagree about it, but capping limits what can be spent. The effect of increased support is a reduction in the level of the poll tax, which is very welcome, but that does not deal with the problem that as a result of the provision for debt and the level of capping there will be a cut in the real level of services in Lambeth in the forthcoming year.

Sir William Shelton: I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, I understand what he is saying and I entirely agree that the major problem that we face in Lambeth is the provision and servicing of that wretched debt. Together, before next year comes, we should approach whatever Government are in power to seek a way to reschedule the borough's debt or we shall never find ourselves in a good financial position.

Mr. Fraser: I am glad that we have reached a consensus on that. That is exactly the sort of representation that we wanted to make to the Department of the Environment

this year, but because our letters and representations were overlooked we did not have that opportunity. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However one looks at it, there is bound to be a cut in the level of services in Lambeth this year—with the exception of refuse collection and street cleaning, because a contract has been placed for those and therefore no cut in the level of support is possible.
That means cuts in the provisions made for sportsmen and for disabled people, for children attending day nursery schools and for pensioners. People hoping to go to college who are not on a mandatory grant and people hoping to go into business—goodness knows, we need people able to go into business in inner city areas—will suffer cuts. There will be a cut in discretionary grants and the business advisory service is to be abolished.
With the two exceptions that I mentioned, whichever service one considers, the quality of life in Lambeth will be degraded as a consequence of this order. The quality of our life has been degraded enough already. In the past 12 months, the Government have been responsible for an increase in unemployment of 40 per cent. in Lambeth. The same people who suffered the 40 per cent. increase in unemployment—to an average level in my constituency of just below 25 per cent.—will have their standard of life degraded in another way because of the cuts in services which will be necessary as a result of the order.
The unlucky number in Lambeth is not 13 but 25—about 25 per cent. of the people eligible to work are unemployed, about 25 per cent. of the population are on income support, and about 25 per cent. of primary school children need special care and attention. The hon. Member for Streatham will confirm that that is the figure given by teachers in our primary schools.
The quality of our life has therefore suffered considerably already, yet we have to put up with this order as well. For some years, the Government have regarded Lambeth as rebellious—[Interruption.] I must correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Streatham that the national executive of the Labour party has suspended or expelled those 13 people either as members or as councillors. I see that there is a member of the national executive on the Labour Front Bench. My advice would be to show a yellow card to those councillors and then put the matter behind them. That is done, sensibly, by football referees and I hope that it will be done by the national executive of the Labour party.
I represent not councils or councillors, but my constituents. The Government have considered Lambeth a rebellious council for some years and are acting like others who have put down rebellions. The Romans, not content with having put down the Spartacus rebellion, carried out thousands of crucifixions afterwards. At the Monmouth rebellion—not the one last week, but the one in 1685—the Government of the day were not content with putting down the rebellion but continued to hunt for well-meaning men and women in order to sacrifice them. Indeed, there is quite a history of association because those who rebelled in 1685 were proved right by 1688. In the same way, those who opposed the poll tax in 1988 have been proved right in 1991. A further historical association is that both Lambeth and Somerset, where the Monmouth rebellion was put down, were rate capped.
I conclude my speech with a list of the sacrifices that will take place in Lambeth services. Thank goodness, as a result of the increase in the rate cap level, Streatham pool will be saved, but two other lidos and a public bath will be


lost. Our library facilities will also be cut. That will he a matter of concern to you, Mr. Speaker, as the facility at Upper Norwood library was available to your constituents and mine. Only this morning I received a letter from an organisation called Amity Reading Club, which deals with literacy provision and social counselling for adults with special learning difficulties. Its classes at the Carnegie library in Herne Hill are to be discontinued as a result of capping. The caretaking facility at the library is also to be cut, so voluntary organisations will no longer be able to meet there when the library is closed.
Lambeth's youth service will be cut by 40 per cent. Those of us who represent constituencies in which there have twice been riots want to put resources into such services. We also want to protect statutory education services, and Lambeth has been forced to cut adult education. I am not talking about degree courses but courses on, for example, ceramics, cooking or sewing, which may make a vital difference to the quality of life of some people and may even inspire them for the rest of their lives. The arts in Lambeth will also suffer enormously as a result of poll tax capping.

Sir William Shelton: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that, although Wandsworth and Lambeth have more or less the same population, leaving aside teachers and education staff, Lambeth employs some 9,000 people while Wandsworth employs only about 5,500? That additional 4,500 people—presumably members of important unions in Lambeth—represent a very heavy cost on those who live in Lambeth.

Mr. Fraser: The difference between the authorities is that in Wandsworth, for good or ill, people voted for cuts, whereas in Lambeth, for good or ill, people did not vote for cuts. That is the difference that Ministers choose to ignore.
I was concluding with a list of sacrifices. There will be cuts in education. This morning, I had a letter from King's College school of medicine and dentistry which said that, as a result of capping, Lambeth has decided that it will have to withdraw one full-time teacher who works closely with children from five to 16 in King's College hospital. Playgroups and day nurseries will have to be sacrificed. Business advisory services, consumer advice services and voluntary advice services will have to be closed.
Head teachers have written to me, including one who recently wrote from a Church of England school, Christchurch school. The letter said that, because of the cut in teaching staff, teachers would simply not be able to perform the job properly.
Second-chance education, which is important in a borough with a high level of unemployment and deprivation, will suffer, as will adult education. Someone came to see me on Friday who had paid his own money to undertake a first degree and so deserved to get his first grant for his second degree, but that was disallowed because the money was not available as a result of capping. One could go on talking about cuts in community services and in the provision of community halls.
One of the most touching incidents was when I marched through the streets with my constituents recently for a partly voluntary organisation called Centre 70. Everyone receives good value for money because much of the work is unpaid. As a result of the 20 per cent. cut across the

board in voluntary services in Lambeth, that centre will have to lose a good value for money scheme for the elderly and frail. Somebody said to me, "Mr. Fraser, what can I do? I have worked 16 years of my life for this organisation and as a result of the cuts I shall lose my job." That is the sort of degradation of the quality of life in my borough that is occurring as a result of the measure.
I have not come to the Chamber to argue for high levels of taxation or poll tax. One way in which we could have resolved the difficulty would have been to relate the average £140 per person poll tax reduction scheme to the level of need from one borough to another. However, the reduction scheme follows exactly the same pattern as the poll tax—it is a per capita reduction, unrelated to need. If the Government had thought to apply it to need and to take from people according to their ability to pay, the measure would not have been necessary and I should not have had to make the complaints that I have made today. The order represents a negation of democracy and a severe attack on nearly all the people I represent.

Mr. Robert Hayward: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) as I have some experience of Lambeth. A close friend of mine lives in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and has attempted three times to pay last year's poll tax bill by writing to Lambeth council. Each time, the council failed to respond. He is a willing payer, waiting to pay. He has paid the bill on the supposition of what the figure should be for part of the year. What is the Labour party's solution to the problem of London? Today, the Labour party published the policies of a future Labour Government. They plan to introduce another tier of Government, another burden on the very people about whom the hon. Gentleman has just been talking which will cost millions of pounds.
I represent a constituency in which both tiers—Avon county council and Bristol city council—were capped last year. We heard all sorts of threats of Armageddon. My hon. Friend the Minister of State identified the reality. However, I also represent a constituency which, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), is partly within a city and partly without it.
There is no doubt that Bristol is an inefficient authority. The burden for the average community charge payer in Bristol because of the non-collection factor is £40. In Kingswood, the other half of my constituency, that burden is less than £10. Therefore, in that respect, Bristol is at least four times less efficient than its neighbouring local authority.
This evening I shall relate most of my comments to the implications of what would happen if no capping system were available to the Government.
On 25 April, I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition to ask him what would be the implications of having no system of capping. I asked him to confirm that
if there were no limits as you suggest, my constituents could face ever increasing demands since both Councils' spending would be limitless"—
that is, the expenditure of both Avon and Bristol. I continued:
Could you please clarify this apparent contradiction, and could you please confirm your continued commitment to a second level of local government in the form of 'Regional Parliaments'.


On 10 March, I received a reply from the right hon. Gentleman's office. Let me quote it in full:
Mr Kinnock has asked me to thank you for your letter of April 25th.
The Labour Party's position on the matters that you raise has been set out in great detail, and I refer you to the relevant documentation.
The letter did not say what the "relevant documentation" was. I went to the Library and asked for the Labour party documentation, which was accordingly provided.
The capping question—which, according to the Leader of the Opposition, was discussed "in great detail"—is covered in 12 lines. I do not want the House to get the wrong impression. I do not mean 12 full lines on an A4 sheet of paper; I mean 12 half-lines. Those 12 lines confirm that there will be no form of capping.
In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that the sum involved was a puny £40 million——

Mr. David Blunkett: It is £38·9 million.

Mr. Hayward: I accept that figure. I was quoting the figure used by the hon. Gentleman's colleague. That is the figure in the order, although it is not the figure that we would be debating had not the Government given a clear indication of what the capping levels would be.
Avon county council, for example, set its figure minimally below the capping level to ensure that it would avoid being capped, and many other authorities did the same. The Labour party cannot say that we are debating only £40 million, or £38·9 million; by implication, we are debating many more millions of pounds. Labour should state clearly how it would cope with that excess expenditure, rather than merely commenting on the capping order. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said that no extra finance would be available. Where, then, will the money come from—whether it is £40 million, £100 million or £200 million? Labour is committed to providing not a penny extra for local government expenditure in the first year. Where the money will come from for the extra tier of government in London is another question.
I have a copy of Labour's document with me. It contains not only the party's proposals in relation to regional government——

Ms. Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we discussing the Labour party's document—which I am more than happy to do—or the capping order for named English authorities?

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing exactly what is in the order. It is legitimate to find connections, but I think that we must stick to the subject of the order.

Mr. Hayward: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was attempting to explain what the implications would be if the order were not available to the Government. That is important to my constituents, whose bills last year were reduced by——

Ms. Primarolo: rose——

Mr. Hayward: It is clear that the Labour party is worried about the implications of not having capping

orders available to it, because of the impact that that would have on my constituents and many others across the country.
Labour's document states:
We believe there is a case for at least some salaried councillors …. we will explore ways of compensating employers for releasing staff for council business.
Community charge payers would face those added burdens if capping were not available. They have not been costed or identified but appear only as promises. The Labour party will not say where the money will come from, despite the hon. Member for Derby, South saying that no more money is available.
I welcome the order. We were told a year ago that we faced Armageddon, but that did not prove to be so. It is important to identify why the Labour party's policy document does not propose capping and to consider the implications of that. It would mean limitless bills, as I said in my letter to the Leader of the Opposition, but to which he failed to reply.

Mr. John Garrett: In an entertaining speech, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) failed to say that many thousands of his constituents live in Broadland and take advantage of Norwich services but do not pay for them. I understood him to say that I would be better employed canvassing in Norwich than representing my constituents in the House. If I have got that wrong, I shall give way to him. No doubt that will attract a fair amount of comment in Norwich tomorrow.
We have been hearing much lately about lying in elections. I do not intend to use the word "lies" or "lying", but in the May elections the Conservative party issued a leaflet headed, "Some things you should know before you vote on May 2nd." It said that Labour had
put up your Community Charge by £68·00 this year.
That is a blatant misrepresentation, because Norwich city council increased poll tax bills by £6. It also said that Labour-controlled Norwich city council has
the highest level of rent arrears and empty Council houses in East Anglia.
That is not true.
The Conservatives of Norwich offered to
lower the Community Charge by a further £68",
which as far as I can calculate would wipe out the city council, and to
reduce the number of homeless by better management of council houses—hundreds are lying empty",
whereas the number of empty council houses in Norwich is below the Government guideline. The killer is that they would
construct the relief road for Bowthorpe.
Having proposed to cut council services, they try to bribe the electorate by announcing that they will construct a road, but I do not know where they would get the money from. It did not do them any good because, once again, they were wiped out in the local elections: they came third in Norwich. That is a pity, because I should rather see an active and flourishing Conservative party in the city of Norwich. At least it is a political party, not a collection of pressure groups like the Liberals.
Leaving aside the contradiction between poll tax capping and local government accountability, which has been discussed in the House for ages, I simply want to put the record straight about Norwich city council and will


quote some figures. I shall carefully avoid what the Minister called hyperbole and exaggeration—tautology if ever I heard it.
The city council proposed a prudent and realistic budget of £18·75 million. That would have meant an increase of £6 a head to cover city services. Tory-controlled Norfolk county council raised its costs by £53, and by £9 a head to cover the cost of late payment of the poll tax. Once again, the city's increase was below inflation. Norwich city council's part of rates and poll tax bills has increased by less than the rate of inflation for 10 years. There was a 58 per cent. increase between 1982 and 1991, compared with a 68 per cent. increase in the retail prices index.
The city's proposed increase included spending an extra £2 million as a result of Government action: the extra cost of collecting the poll tax and running poll tax benefits, £1·5 million; taking over street cleaning and other responsibilities from the county, £200,000; the extra costs for the Government's litter code in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, £100,000; and Government cuts in housing benefit subsidy, £150,000. To keep the bills down, the council used £2·25 million of its reserves. The council has a two-year plan to ensure that it has enough reserves to cover emergencies and to cope with normal cash flow. That has been approved by the Audit Commission as a way of managing the city council's cash flows.
There is no doubt that Norwich spends above its standard spending assessment, but the surrounding districts spend well below theirs because the city provides services that also meet their needs. When the Government changed from rates to the poll tax, their assessment of how much Norwich needed went down by 5·9 per cent., whereas the average for district councils throughout England increased by 11·2 per cent. Without that change, Norwich would have spent up to £17·5 million without being capped—£1 million more than it had planned to spend.
Under last year's Government rules, the council could have spent £20 million without being capped. The changes meant that this year Norwich was liable to capping if it spent more than £15 million. No council can be capped —as we have already heard—if it spends less than £15 million, but that figure has not been changed since it was introduced and has not been kept in line with inflation. The Government told Norwich to cut until it spent only 13·7 per cent. above its SSA. Other capped authorities have been allowed to spend between 17·5 per cent. and 82·6 per cent. above their SSAs. The council has repeatedly asked the Government how they work out the amount by which capped authorities should cut their budgets so that it can determine whether the city council has been treated fairly. However, the Government have persistently refused to give that information.
To cut the council's budget by £1·5 million to £15 million would mean a maximum of £16 a head or 31p a week off the bills in the city. The thousands of people who pay only 20 per cent. of the poll tax bills would benefit by only 6p a week. Although little more than half the poll tax payers in Norwich will see little or no benefit from the city being capped, they will see a reduction in services as cuts have to be made to get down to £15 million. Norwich's levels of spending have been endorsed every year in local elections and, as I said, for the past 55 years Norwich city has elected a Labour council and now has the biggest-ever majority in its history.
The Government's attitude shows that they do not understand the peculiarities of Norwich. Their SSA for districts such as Norwich is based almost entirely on the number of people living in the council's area. In Norwich, that was taken to be 117,000 whereas the county thinks that it is 120,000. However, the city is a regional capital serving an urban, built-up area of 180,000 people. It has a sub-regional population of 286,000, a travel-to-work area of 300,000 people and a shopping catchment area of 600,000 people. It provides recreation, sports, cultural and marketing facilities for a large part of the county of Norfolk. It also acts as a focus for social needs in the county, for example, for the homeless. One hundred homeless people sleep on the streets every night, having been drawn into the city from the surrounding suburbs and rural areas.
Norwich is not only a regional capital, but it has far greater spending needs on, for example, traffic management because of its medieval street pattern. Norfolk county council has always underfunded traffic work, so the city has to make up the expenditure. Of the 11 traffic staff —theoretically a county responsibility—only four are paid for by the county. The city's work on traffic management, meanwhile, has been praised by Ministers at the Department of the Environment.
Norwich has an enormous cost burden from its historic heritage buildings. I do not know why the hon. Member for Norwich, North talks them down because he has none —they are all in my constituency. The city has 1,500 listed buildings, of which 250 are owned by the city council. It has the largest collection of medieval churches in Europe. The bill for outstanding repairs for city-owned heritage properties is £6 million. The council also has to make large grants to private owners and to trusts to keep the buildings in good repair. It is always difficult to sell heritage properties with structural problems and it is especially difficult now. The budget had to reflect all those demands, but it still came up with a standstill on city council-determined services. It managed the absorption of inflation on supplies and services, it managed the absorption of new Government spending requirements, such as those in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it maintained a prudent level of reserves and it provided appropriate contingency levels.
Norwich has special costs because it is a regional capital and a historic city, and it has to meet the social and recreational needs of at least half a county. It produced a modest and sensible budget. The Audit Commission said:
The council faces considerable pressure on both its revenue and capital finances because of the threat of community charge capping and the new capital control system … I am satisfied that the council is taking the necessary steps to keep its finances in a sound position.
That is an objective view from an auditor. It was a modest and sensible budget; the Minister's decision is ill-informed and spiteful. He has made his decision simply because Norwich is an effective and well-managed Labour-controlled city.

10 pm

Mr. James Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers for the almost £3 million additional funding in revenue support grant which they have made available to the county of Warwickshire. The Warwickshire cap was originally set at £272·3 million; on appeal, it has been


raised to £275·1 million. Clearly, that is a substantial benefit to my constituents and to those who live in Warwickshire.
The five Warwickshire Members have met my right hon. and hon. Friends on a number of occasions. I take this opportunity to thank especially my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities for the courteous and friendly way in which he has listened to our arguments. Clearly, he has not just listened; he has taken our representations on board. I say to him with all the sincerity that I can command that we are grateful to him for that and, in addition, we are grateful for the lifting of the cap to £275·1 million.
I still, however, remain in some disagreement with my right hon. and hon. Friends. When the community charge was introduced, the buzz word. was "accountability". The theory was that the charge would make local authorities more accountable to their electorates. I cannot see how capping achieves that laudable objective.
In Warwickshire, a saving of £16 per head would have occurred as a result of the cap being applied. But the effect of last Thursday's announcement will reduce that figure to £9. That £9 is insignificant when compared with the Government's £140 reduction in the gross amount of community charge.
My constituents have made it abundantly clear to me in more than 250 letters, in innumerable conversations, in meetings and in deputations that they would have preferred a reasonable level of service to be maintained, especially in education, rather than to have had a modest reduction in the community charge bill of some £9 per head. There is, however, another and perhaps even more powerful reason for my disquiet—and I made the point in my intervention in the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith).
In January 1990, I voted against the revenue support grant. On 29 January this year, I voted against the RSG. I am not anxious to make it three in a row. It is a hat trick that I can well do without. I very much hope, therefore, that in putting down a marker tonight my right hon. and hon. Friends will reconsider and will make the necessary adjustments to the standard spending assessment formula which will enable Warwickshire to obtain a fair shake and a sensible revenue support allocation. Such an allocation must be seen to be fair and to reflect more accurately the needs and responsibilities of the county of Warwickshire and its residents.
I want to pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. He suggested that it would be extremely helpful if the five Warwickshire Members of Parliament—and four are present in the Chamber—met my right hon. Friend to discuss the way in which the formula operates. Clearly there are major problems with the way in which funding is directed to our county. It would be of great benefit if we could have a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister. I see my hon. Friend the Minister nodding his agreement, and I am grateful to him.
As I have said before in the House, Warwickshire is not a high-spending or profligate local authority. It clearly cannot be compared with the likes of Lambeth, Rochdale or Bristol. Some of the horror stories that we have heard tonight are appalling, but Warwickshire, thank goodness,

is not in that league. Warwickshire has a reasonable but not extravagant level of service and the authority is generally efficient. The problem which faces Warwickshire is to balance the desire to remain within Government limits and at the same time to provide a service which is acceptable to the majority of the people of Warwickshire.
Everything hinges on the amount of Government grant, and if the rate support grant is much lower than that which is provided to similar and neighbouring authorities then clearly Warwickshire will need to obtain more from its charge payers. But if it seeks to do that, it will be capped. It is a classic Catch 22 situation. Apparently, the only solution left is to reduce the level and quality of services being provided in the county, and that is not in accordance with the wishes of the majority of those living in Warwickshire
Warwickshire county council would welcome the opportunity of being held truly accountable to its electorate for the level of its community charge. It is certain that it knows what its electorate wants, and that is not a £9 per head reduction at the expense of education or the police. As I said earlier, I base that statement on my postbag and that of my colleagues. Warwickshire people do not wish to see a reduction in services.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: rose——

Mr. Pawsey: I shall be delighted to give way again to my hon. Friend. He has a deserved reputation in this House and in his constituency for being an assiduous Member of Parliament

Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. Does he agree that one of the difficulties facing the county is that, because of the number of motorways and other happenings there, we require more police, but in the current circumstances we may not be given the posts for which we have applied to the Home Office?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. He takes the words from my mouth, but that will not stop me repeating them.
I am not an uncritical supporter of Warwickshire, and those who were present in the Chamber last Tuesday for the debate on grant-maintained schools will know that I was highly critical of the county council's education committee. The way in which it seeks to dissuade schools from applying for grant-maintained status is completely wrong. It is as wrong on that issue as the Government are on the amount of Warwickshire's revenue support grant, and that is harsh criticism indeed.
Even with the extra £3 million being provided by the Government, there will be a reduction in the number of teachers in my constituency and a resultant increase in class size. Naturally, parents are dismayed. During the Conservative administration in shire hall residents have seen a steady improvement in education standards and it will be unfortunate if that improvement, in some areas at least, is halted.
However, the effects of capping are not just being felt on the education service. They also occur in the police—the very point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens). As my hon. Friend said, there is a real irony here. For some years, the five Warwickshire Members of Parliament have been seeking to increase the establishment of the police in Warwickshire. Our efforts have borne fruit. This year, there has been an increase in


the establishment by some eight officers but, sadly, it seems that they will not now be recruited. Even worse, it seems that there is a risk that we shall lose police officers in Warwickshire. The chief constable has made it clear that there will be insufficient funds to pay police overtime.
I wish to quote from an article that appeared in my local newspaper, the admirable Rugby Advertiser. The editor of the Rugby Advertiser wrote:
Warwickshire experienced the second highest rise in crime in Britain last year. And in the last four months 25 men and two women officers were injured while policing our streets. The attacks were almost double the figures of the preceding year. These figures are published in the wake of a grim warning from Chief Constable Peter Joslin that if the force has to bear further financial cuts in its budget, the overtime element will disappear and, he believes, the police will have lost control of the streets of the county.
That is a pretty damning indictment. On the one hand this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington —the Home Office believes that more officers are necessary effectively to police the county. On the other hand, the Department of the Environment will not allow the authority the funds necessary to pay them. That highlights the paradox. The Home Office certainly does not think that Warwickshire is wasteful or profligate with resources, manpower or money. If it did, it would not have approved the increase in establishment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to the anomalies within the formula. It is necessary for my right hon. and hon. Friends to produce a standard spending assessment that is fair if we are to avoid exactly this same row next year. I do not suggest that the administration of Warwickshire county council is perfect. It is not. There is always room for improvement. Equally, however, the county is not particularly wasteful. Those who run its affairs are conscientious and provide good value for money. I quote from a letter that I received only today from the leader of Warwickshire county council. County Councillor Vereker says:
Did you realise that by budgeting to underclaim over £60,000 of the personal allowances to which we are entitled by law, we are indirectly funding about 5 teachers out of our personal allowances!
That shows just how conscientious the local authority and its councillors are.
I take no pleasure in voting against my own Government, and I certainly hope that this will be the last time on this issue.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, I shall make my remarks as brief as I can.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr Hayward)—as did the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities when he opened the debate—quoted a National and Local Government Officers Association report about the effects last year of capping. Bristol was capped last year. It is capped again this year. I do not know whether the association has got it wrong or whether the Minister has only partially read the report. Many effects were felt in local authorities such as Bristol. For instance, no vacancies were filled in Bristol. There was also a massive increase in taxi licences and parking fees. Furthermore, there was a massive increase in street licences for traders.
Repairs on housing were made subject to a cash-limited budget. Installation of central heating for those who desperately needed it on health grounds was also cash limited. When the money ran out, the services ceased to be provided, regardless of need.
The speeches made in tonight's debate echo only half of the discussion. Needs and services do not feature in the speeches made by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) made a direct speech and made clear how he intended to vote. But it is not good enough for he and his colleagues to say that the formula is right when it penalises Labour authorities but wrong when it penalises Conservative authorities. The issue at the centre of the debate is the functioning of local authorities and how services are provided.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) spoke earlier in the debate. It is regrettable that even after the figures that he used were corrected in an intervention he persisted in using another series of figures which misrepresented the position in Bristol. For example, he quoted the amount of money that is spent on collecting the poll tax and administering the benefits. He failed to mention the measures that the city has taken to help people who do not have bank accounts to pay it by facilitating payment at post offices.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West gave an estimated figure instead of the real figure for the cost of collecting the poll tax. The real figure is £14·65. That is below the average cost of £15 in the metropolitan authorities and the big 11 with which we are comparable. The hon. Gentleman then referred to the loss of money on community charge collection. He said that my figures were wrong and that he would use the Audit Commission's figures. I have the Audit Commission figures. The figure for Bristol is £10 per head, and the average for the big nine cities is £14 per head. So Bristol is no worse than most cities.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West then referred to rent arrears. In Bristol rent arrears are running at 10 per cent. The average for similar authorities is 12 per cent. Non-payment of the poll tax and an increase in rent arrears in a city such as Bristol is caused by people's poverty. My constituency has the highest rate of long-term unemployment in the region. People who simply do not have the money cannot pay.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West said that he did not attack the integrity of the officers of the authority. He then proceeded to challenge all the figures that they have provided. I refer specifically to the provision for non-payment in Bristol. The Government recommend that the provision should be about 5 per cent., which would be £22 per head. The advice of the treasurer to elected council members from all parties in Bristol was that provision should be about 7·5 per cent. If elected members deliberately ignore the advice that is given to them by their officers, they become liable under various pieces of legislation for possible surcharge for not taking the relevant advice. It is not true or fair for the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West to say that Labour members are dangerous, footloose and fancy free with the authority's expenditure.
The position in Bristol is simple. The problem is with the standard spending assessment, to which many Conservative Members have referred this evening. Despite all the protestations of Conservative Members, the


difference, alas, between the Labour and the Conservative budgets was a matter of a few million pounds. A Conservative administration in Bristol would also have been capped. This year, Bristol has been capped below the level at which it was capped last year. In other words, the cap has been tightened, and inflation has cut into expenditure. No account has been taken of the special position in which Bristol finds itself because of its dock; no account has been taken of the fact that Bristol is compared with authorities other than those with which it is comparable; no account has been taken of the fact that the Department operates on the basis of information and statistics that are so out of date that they bear no resemblance to what is happening.
Before the all-party delegation lobbied the Minister, it asked for a meeting with the city's Members of Parliament. I and two Conservative Members attended. I assume that the hon. Member for Kingswood was unable to be there. There was agreement across the political parties that the capping was unjust, that it would destroy services, that the SSA was wrong, that no account had been taken of the dock, and that the Government were simply using the wrong information. It is truly astonishing that Conservative Members should contradict their Bristol council colleagues and the leader of the council.
There will be cuts in Bristol's services. There will be cuts in economic development measures as we plunge further into recession, and as the unemployment rate continues to rise. Desperately needed environmental projects will be cut, as will the advice-giving agencies in the community sector and the voluntary sector. There will also be cuts in the arts, including provision for the Old Vic. Yet this is an area in which Conservative Members, including the Secretary of State for Health, have made a vigorous case for increased expenditure. Swimming pools will be closed, and there may have to be reduced provision for concessionary bus, fares. Bristol will have to reduce its services to the bare statutory level.
This is no way to finance local authorities. If Bristol had received from the Government the same grant per head as did Wandsworth, there would be no poll tax there. Indeed, each poll tax payer would get a rebate of about £300, or, alternatively, the authority would have many millions of pounds of additional money to spend. There is a question that Conservative Members of Parliament representing the city of Bristol will have to answer: why did they vote to give the people of Wandsworth more than the people who sent them to this Chamber? Capping is a disgrace, and I shall vote against it with pleasure.

Mr. Teresa Gorman: It was worth forgoing my dinner tonight for the opportunity to express in the Chamber the profound relief of my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) that the Minister has had the good sense to keep Basildon capped. Basildon is one of two Labour councils with which my constituents are afflicted. The other is Thurrock, which is very little better than Basildon. Of course, Basildon is notorious for the way in which it disregards its puppets—the community charge payers. It is the fifth most extravagant council in the country, and if it were not for the intervention of my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State, we should be faced with a community charge of almost £500. That is an absolute disgrace, given the fact that many people in my constituency and in the constituency of Basildon work hard but do not earn particularly high incomes.
The ruthlessness and cunning of Basildon council, which is marginally Labour—but only marginally—is displayed tonight by the fact that it has circulated to Labour Members a letter threatening to close services to the elderly and to children at the same time as it fritters away money on massive subsidies on such extravagances as the Towngate theatre. The council, which should be able to provide a standard level of services for £12 million, budgeted for £26 million. Only the good sense of the Government has held that figure down to £23 million. Fortunately, because of the Government's intervention with the subsidy of £140 and the additional capping, the charge will be little more than £300. At least that amount is manageable for most people.
Basildon council is one of the most spendthrift councils in the country. It recently borrowed £12 million to build a great white elephant of a theatre that costs us £2 million a year in interest charges alone, and £500,000 a year in subsidy. Meanwhile, pavements in other parts of the constituency are cracked, broken and dangerous. The council does not give two hoots about that. The grass verges at the sides of the streets remain uncut, and people are threatened with the closure of the local swimming pool that their children use. That is what Basildon council thinks of the people who foot the bills.
The council spends more than £0·25 million on its public relations exercise—heaven knows, it needs it; its reputation in our area is atrocious. Of course, at the local elections this month the voters showed the council what they thought of its charges and services and there was a 9 per cent. swing to the Tories. We took two Labour seats in wards that were old-style Labour strongholds, and we won another seat from the Liberal Democrats. We reduced the Labour majority to a margin of one. This time next year I shall be able to report to the House that at last Basildon council and its supporters will be relieved of the incubus of the old-style, callous Labour administration under which we have laboured so long.
Among the council's other extravagances is a newsletter —supposedly an information sheet—called Basildon Link. Some £62,000 a year is spent on that in an area where three excellent free newspapers come through our doors and there are two local newspapers that we can buy for 20p. Basildon Link, supposedly a neutral information sheet, ran the headline, "Heseltine's tax horror" above its report on the community charge. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment specifically on the following extract from that article. It says that the Government have
not once discussed the financial plight of Basildon with councillors".
I believe that that statement is extremely economical with the truth, and I shall ask my hon. Friend to tell us categorically whether it is true.
The real reason why councils such as Basildon cost so much is their notoriously wasteful use of staff. Basildon's labour costs are astronomical. It employs 44 per cent. more staff per 1,000 of the population than any other council in the group of councils which the Audit Commission designates as having a similar population. Basildon is one of the most overstaffed councils in the country. It operates all the old Spanish practices—


overmanning, feather-bedding and Mickey Mouse-isms —which once existed in old-style industries such as printing.
Such councils cost so much because they cater not for the community but for the National and Local Government Officers Association and Transport and General Workers Union barons who still rule them, although in Basildon that will not be true for much longer.
Basildon spends nearly £1·5 million just to run the town hall, without the services, and on top of that it runs area offices all over the place—there are eight of them.
In the town of Billericay, with a population of about 36,000 souls, there are 12 full-time staff to cater for them. As the Member covering Billericay and a great deal more and with an electorate of almost 90,000 souls, I manage my day's work with one and a half members of staff. That is an indication of the wastefulness which the council inflicts on our voters.
While these enormous sums of money are being wasted on flapdoodle like the Basildon Link and the Towngate theatre, real needs in our constituencies go wanting. We need a level crossing in the town of Wickford over a very dangerous railway, but we cannot have it. The money has gone to subsidise the Towngate theatre. We need a

community hall in the town of Billericay, but we cannot have it. The money has gone for a £1·5 million subsidy to the town hall in Basildon. We need our pavements repairing, the verges cutting and the swimming pool to be kept open on a regular basis. All these things are denied to us by the accountant, so-called, Mr. Ballard, who, as I have already pointed out, has got not only our finances in a mess but those of Walworth road as well. So I am here this evening to say on behalf of my constituents that we are extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for what he has done.
In the town of Basildon, next to the monstrous town hall and between it and the Towngate theatre is another little office, which contains the staff who run our local bus service, the Thamesway bus service, which is part of the Badgerline. That bus service, which was bought out by the people who work for it and travels 13 million miles a year, with 300 buses, £80 million a year turnover and 1,000 staff, has an office staff of eight people. That is the private sector for you!
I am quite sure that the Government's measures, coupled with next year's election, will see the end of this bunch, and I say thank you to the Secretary of State for helping us on our way.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The House is always entertained by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and the overexcitement of the orange box, or soap box, that she climbs on. She said one thing that intrigued me when she waved the local paper. The headline in that paper, as I saw it flashing in her hands, was "Our fate in his hands". That seems to sum up the debate tonight, because the fate of many people in all the authorities that are to be capped is in the hands of the Government.
The question before the House is, should the spending of the authorities named in the order be determined and restrained by Whitehall? Should it be determined by the Government? Have Ministers got their figures right and can they justify those figures? Having listened to the Minister of State opening the debate and to this hon. Friends speaking from the Benches behind him, I remain totally unconvinced that he has got his figures right and that he can justify taking central Government powers to control local authorities in this way.
I speak tonight to try to explain to the Minister of State why the cap, particularly in relation to Stoke-on-Trent city council, is unfair and unjust and will damage local services; and to seek an explanation from the Under-Secretary when he winds up of how this has come about. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Stoke-on-Trent set a budget last year of £28 million and that the Government claim that this is excessive—so excessive that it must be cut. But he knows also that 12 months ago the Minister took a similar look at Stoke-on-Trent and said that it would be appropriate and proper for the city council to spend £33·75 million. That is over £5 million more than the council was proposing to spend this year. How does the Minister explain that last year it was appropriate for Stoke-on-Trent to spend over £33 million while this year anything over £25·72 million is a disaster, so much so that Stoke-on-Trent and its people must be punished? Have the circumstances of the city changed so acutely in the Government's view? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response because I am confused. I suspect that the people of Stoke-on-Trent are confused by the Government's change of mind over the past 12 months.
When the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities responded to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), he offered a hurried and garbled explanation of the indicators, as he saw them, behind the standard spending assessment. He mentioned several indicators and seemed to say that circumstances had changed. He picked on the city's housing investment programme allocation. It has indeed changed, and the Minister scored an own goal. Last year the allocation was £17·7 million and this year the Government cut it to £14·5 million. The circumstances have changed and, unfortunately, they have worsened for Stoke-on-Trent. The Government reduced the HIP allocation and decided that the city should spend less this year. There seems to be no logic in that.
I am sure that the Minister listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who spelt out the realities of housing in Stoke-on-Trent, which, sadly, have not changed much over the past year. The city has twice the average rate of houses that do not have a bathroom. It has three times the

national average rate of houses without a WC. About 53 per cent. of the city's houses are substandard. Homelessness is rising, and during the winter young people were sleeping on the streets. Things are becoming worse, yet the Government say that less should be spent than that which was expended a year ago. There is no logic in that.
The Minister and his colleagues know the realities of health in Stoke-on-Trent. The Minister for Health visited the city recently to examine in detail its health profile, which has not changed since 1910. The city suffers from industrial diseases. Men in my constituency, and the other Stoke constituences, have a small chance of living long enough to pick up their pension. Those are realities that have not changed, yet the Government say that the city should spend less this year than last year. I find that extremely difficult to justify and I look forward to the Minister's explanation.
If the Government cannot justify the reduction in the SSA, on what other basis can they explain their treatment of the people of Stoke? The Minister said that the city was spending more than comparable authorities, but the authorities with which he chose to compare the city were Staffordshire district authorities. Surely the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment cannot seriously say that the problems facing a major industrial city such as Stoke are to be compared with those of Staffordshire, Moorlands, for example. A comparison should be made with other industrial cities in the big nine. I am glad that the Minister nods his head. My right hon. and hon. Friends have already said that spending levels per year in their constituencies are far in excess of the figure for Stoke. The city is at the bottom of the league with a spending level of £128.
Leicester is a comparable but rather wealthier city, with higher levels of income. Its spending is appropriate at £237. How does the Minister explain the difference between the two cities? The logic of the Government's argument is that services cost 85 per cent. more to be delivered in Leicester than in Stoke. The Under-Secretary knows that that is not true. It does not cost 85 per cent. more to deliver the same services in Leicester than in Stoke, but it seems that that is what SSA is all about. The Government know that they are engaging in Alice-in-Wonderland economies. The figures do not add up. Indeed, when a realistic view is taken of them, they are seen to be nonsense.
So the figure cannot have been reached on a comparative basis. It certainly cannot be on the basis that Stoke-on-Trent is profligate. When I and my hon. Friends met the Under-Secretary a few weeks ago, with the city council leaders, he was kind enough to compliment Stoke-on-Trent on the good, constructive and cautious use that it made of Government investment, for example, with the garden festival. We were grateful for that compliment from the Under-Secretary. Yet three weeks later he turns round and says that we are so profligate and excessive in our expenditure that we have to be capped. The Under-Secretary seems to have a very short memory if he cannot relate those two—a compliment on our extremely cautious and good behaviour when using Government investment, then suddenly saying we are excessive. Would he kindly explain that when he comes to the Dispatch Box?
The Under-Secretary may also say that there is a wise alternative and that there is another budget. However, he knows from the submission made to him when he received


the delegation from the city council that all the Conservative councillors supported the budget and our appeal against the poll tax. There was no alternative budget—it was a bipartisan view in Stoke-on-Trent, yet the Minister ignored it.
The Minister of State said that we were doing very well for Government grants. We are extremely grateful for anything that we can get from the Government. Last year, we got £147·60 per person from the Government. Had we got even half what Wandsworth got—I believe that it was £711 per person—in Government grants last year, we would not be in this position. How on earth can the Minister of State seriously say that the level of need in Wandsworth is so acute that it needs more than five times the amount of Government grant to cope with its difficulties than an industrial city like Stoke-on-Trent needs?
The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary know that those figures do not add up. There is no rational economic explanation for the SSAs that they have provided or for this order. The Minister knows that the real reason is political, yet despite that the Minister is saying that the SSA is a brilliant, precision tool that can identify dangerous overspending, which will damage the quality of life for everyone in this country unless it is restrained. So superb is the precision of that tool that it can identify £9·7 million worth of overspend nationally, out of a total spend by local authorities of £37 billion—that is precision to the point of 0·027 per cent. It is reassuring to hon. Members on both sides of the House to know that the Department of the Environment is so confident of its figures that it can home in with that accuracy and weed out 0·027 per cent. overspend around the country.
The truth is that the SSA is a shambles and the Government know it; and the poll tax is a shambles and is totally discredited. The Government do not believe in it any more and nor do the public, yet the Government are asking people in Stoke-on-Trent to accept it, without any explanation of how it has come about. We hope that the Under-Secretary will rectify that in a moment. That is damaging people in Stoke-on-Trent and in all local authorities that are affected by the order. I hope that the Government will be the most damaged because it is idiocies and hypocrisies like this which will see them thrown out at the general election.

Mr. Michael Irvine: It saddens me that Ipswich is one of the very few councils to be singled out for charge capping. I do not like to see my town rubbing shoulders with Lambeth and the other high spenders in what I regard as the league of shame. The hard truth is that Ipswich borough council has brought charge capping upon itself by financial irresponsibility and by excessive spending.
I believe that I can claim a degree of objectivity. I am no automatic apologist for the Government, especially on matters of local government finance. After all, I was one of the Conservative Members who rebelled and voted against the introduction of the poll tax. I also abstained in protest against the standard spending assessment set for Ipswich in the past financial year. But although I have been critical of the Government, I have also been strongly critical of

overspending by Ipswich borough council, which last year exceeded its SSA by a staggering 96·3 per cent. and escaped capping only by a technicality.
This year the Government set much more realistic SSAs, and they received my support. Despite that more realistic approach, however, this year we in Ipswich find ourselves yet again saddled with one of the highest poll taxes in the country, and our borough council has again overshot its SSA by a significant margin—by a full 50 per cent., in fact. Overspending on this scale demands action by the Government, not to punish or oppress Ipswich borough council but to protect the Ipswich poll tax payer.
Naturally there are anxieties in Ipswich about the impact of charge capping. I met representatives of the National and Local Government Officers Association in Ipswich recently to discuss the issue. They stated their anxieties fairly and effectively. I have a good deal of sympathy with their anxieties, and I hope that job cuts can be avoided. In my view, the employees of the council are as much the victims of the financial unwisdom of the council as are Ipswich poll tax payers in general. It needs to be made clear that any unpalatable consequences of charge capping will be the fault not of the Government but of the borough council.
To put the cuts required of the council in perspective, the council is being required to cut its budget by £1·3 million, from £17·3 million to £16 million. Only a few months ago the Ipswich borough council handed over a brand new five-screen cinema centre that it had built for the Rank Organisation at a cost of £4·6 million to the council. That is more than three times the sum the council is being required to cut from its budget. And what did it get in return for the luxury cinema? It received from Rank an old cinema-cum-theatre suitable for live entertainment but in a poor state of repair and needing immediate expenditure of £600,000—and doomed, no doubt, to run at a loss year in, year out.
I described the £4·6 million five-screen cinema centre handed over by the council to Rank Organisation as a snip for the Rank Organisation but a heavy burden for the Ipswich poll tax payer. I stand by that description. This sort of grandiose, vainglorious project, this sort of gross overspending, is precisely why the Ipswich poll tax payer needs protection and why charge capping is, on occasion, necessary.

Mr. Frank Field: The poll tax in the Wirral is high not because we have a profligate Labour administration. Indeed, in all the discussions between central Government and the local authority, on no occasion has anyone been able to produce any table of heads of major local authority expenditure that would put the Wirral near the top of the expenditure league. No, the reasons why our poll tax is high are as simple as they are deadly.
One of the reasons has already been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). She said that in Bristol, as in Wirral, if there were the same level of Government support as is given to Wandsworth, far from receiving poll tax bills, the poll tax payers would be picking up a cheque from the local authority or the Government. When the Under-Secretary


of State responds, will he say whether next year will bring justice to Wirral, as it has brought justice to Wandsworth in the past few years?
That is not the only reason why our poll tax is high. Another reason is that our level of grant is so much below that set for other districts such as Wandsworth. The budget for the previous year was set by a Tory-Liberal administration and had two peculiar aspects. First, the Tory leader thought that the budget should be set by telephone. With the help of a local newspaper, a phone-in was conducted and people were asked to pick figures out of the air for the level at which the poll tax should be set. The Tory leader then took a figure at which the poll tax could be set if all the local authority reserves were used up, and the poll tax was set at that level. We therefore enter the current financial year with no financial reserves and a false budget from which this year's calculations have been made.
The Tory leader knew that the authority could not run at a modest level of services, let alone a generous level, at the figure at which he had set the poll tax without using the financial reserves, so the level of the authority's spending is last year's budget minus those reserves. [Interruption.]

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: My hon. Friend can continue until 11 pm.

Mr. Field: I know that.
The second reason why the poll tax is high is therefore the Government have taken last year's fixed budget levels to work out what we should be spending this year.
There is a third reason why our poll tax is high, and it has nothing to do with the current Labour administration. There is overspending on the Merseyside police and the transport authority. In both cases, Wirral council has to levy the poll tax required by those two organisations to raise their budgets. If their budgets had been set at the level at which the Government said that they should have been set, there would have been no question of overspending in the Wirral.
Therefore, my third question to the Under-Secretary of State is this: next year, will he allow authorities such as the police and transport authorities, over which the council has no control, to set budgets way above their SSAs and thus throw Wirral's budget into confusion, or will he take some restraining measures?
I am mindful of the fact that Opposition Members wish to sum up fully, so I shall conclude on the following point. When Warwickshire Members asked if they could come to talk to the Secretary of State and his colleagues about the budget in their constituencies for next year, he quickly turned and nodded. I hope that the same facilities will be provided for Wirral Members. We are debating an authority with one Labour seat and three Tory seats, so the confusion into which Wirral's budget has been thrown affects far more Tory voters than Labour voters. Sometimes one needs to be political in the House, but I am concerned about all the charge payers.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer the three questions that I have posed. First, why has Wirral been treated as it has? Had we had anything like the deal secured by Tory Wandsworth—and three out of four of our seats are Tory—we should have been picking up cheques, not paying poll tax. Secondly, given that a

near-crazy regime governed the setting of our poll tax by telephone and the raiding of reserves last year, will some adjustment be made to what the Government believe Wirral should spend to keep within its budget, even if it were the most responsible body on earth?
Despite all the pressures, had we not had to levy a poll tax for the regional transport authority and the police, we should still have been within the target that the Government had set us. My third question is therefore this: will the Government let those bodies levy whatever charges they choose, with the mayhem that that will bring, or will the Government take measures next year to ensure that the brave efforts made by the new Wirral administration, and the skill shown by our new leader in his negotiations with the Government, are able to bear fruit?
There was some confusion a moment ago, but I think that I was being told that I could speak until 11 pm. Having asked my three questions, however, I shall sit down early in the hope that in the extra four minutes people in the Wirral will be given some clear, positive and encouraging answers by the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I am grateful to the Environment Ministers for the courtesy that they showed to Warwickshire Members by listening to their case, and for the easement of nearly £3 million that they granted the county. That takes it to within nearly 1 per cent. of the budget figure that was set and should allow the proposed cuts in services to be considerably modified. My hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) put Warwickshire's case forcefully and in some detail. Much of that case has been repeated several times to Ministers, and I have backed it at various meetings.
In the three minutes available to me, I should like to return to the standard spending assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned a figure of £13 million, which originated in the changeover from rates to community charge. That seems to be the missing figure and it is one that crops up time and again.
If we compute the difference between the SSA set by the Government and Warwickshire's proposed budget for this year, we again encounter the figure of £ 13 million. On both sides of the House, questions remain about that SSA. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today that he would extend the capping to many other councils, according to their budget figures, and I welcome that. Capping is inevitable; it is also the only way in which to control local government in the present circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities made the point forcefully. Had it not been for capping, it would have been almost impossible to contain local government spending in total for the year. Within the SSA mechanism, however, there is a danger of certain factors being exaggerated—factors that work slightly to the benefit of some authorities and slightly to the disadvantage of others.
I suggest that there should be a fine-tuning mechanism. Factors such as salaries should be taken more into account in SSAs. Police salaries, for instance, may not produce an appropriate average, because long-service employees may be at the top of the scale. Let me make another suggestion: as we move towards a time when authorities will spend less


than £15 million, it becomes more crucial to be in tune with the actualities rather than the averages that we have used until now. Unless we move to that, I fear that it will be difficult to ensure that the Government's assessment is fair and reasonable. I appreciate that the task is far from easy, but we must achieve it.
If the Government explain to people and to authorities how the SSAs are made up, we may, by modification, achieve an assessment that works and is acceptable. However, it must be fine-tuned far more than at present.

11 pm

Mr. David Blunkett: Capping is neither necessary nor inevitable. The hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) and for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) believe that we cannot survive without capping and that the economy, social life and democratic character of our nation depend on it, but that is patent, blatant, silly nonsense. We did not have capping between 1601 and 1985. The friction between central and local government in the mid-1980s, the enormous cuts in services that were forced on local government from the centre and the enormous cuts in grant that necessitated increases in rates to maintain even a basic service were caused entirely by Conservative Members and the Government. It was their fault that local and central government got into a state in the mid-1980s, and it will be their fault if, in the months between now and the delayed general election, that fiasco continues.
It is clear that the £38·9 million that allegedly will be "saved" by the order has nothing to do with rational judgment of the operation of democracy or the economy or a rational view of how to assess need, levels of service or value for money at local level. The £200 million that was squandered by the delayed decision at the end of March to adjust the amount of central Government money that goes into local authority coffers was a deliberate act to try to ensure that the local elections would not be a fiasco. The £4·3 billion that was cut on achieving the £140 flat-rate reduction was a deliberate effort to save Conservative party seats. That failed, and capping will merely add to the Conservatives' demise. But £38·9 million was spent, without justification, in a pathetic attempt to hold down essential public services.
I wish to deal, first, with the economic argument. I agreed with 99 per cent. of what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said, except his notion that there is a role for central Government in determining the amount that should be raised and spent locally. That is not accepted in the bastion of private enterprise—the United States—and it should not be accepted anywhere else. There is no economic argument in terms of inflation, fiscal or macroeconomic policy for determining what a local authority raises and spends on local services. There are some fiscal and macro arguments on the amount of borrowing in the economy—the same arguments as apply to private-sector borrowing to build hypermarkets, shopping complexes and the leisure centres on which Conservative Members are so keen, but which are priced out of the reach of ordinary people. It is the same argument; in fact, it is a much better argument in terms of public spending because it is less inflationary.
Public spending tends to be on essential items; it tends not to generate imports; it tends to put work into the local economy, to be more directly employee-based and,

therefore, to employ people. When people are employed, less is spent on social security benefits. When they have wages in their pockets and they are lifted by a national minimum wage out of the penury of having to claim benefits even though they are in work, they can pay their taxes and national insurance contributions. Therefore, money is put back into the coffers.
It makes sense from everyone's point of view to spend money on decent services, to give people jobs in which they can take pride rather than paying them to stay at home on the dole. Everybody knows that it makes sense. For every job that is lost through the poll tax capping exercise this year in the 14 authorities involved, there will be a price that we, as taxpayers, will have to pay.
£38·9 million will not be saved by this exercise—nor anything like it—because the money will be spent in other ways. It will be spent in not paying people to provide decent services for children in Warwickshire schools. It will be saved through the cut in the amount spent on the needs of the elderly in Lambeth, and it will be saved in terms of the miserable cuts in Basildon and Bristol which have been paraded tonight and of which the relevant Members of Parliament are so proud. It is difficult to take seriously the rantings of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) because she is one of the old guard which is supposed to be quiet these days in the new phase of the Tory party. However, she speaks honestly about a Tory view of the world. She wants pavements repaired, but she does not want to employ anyone to repair them. She wants a village hall, but she does not anyone to open it. She wants a town hall, but she does not want anyone employed in it.
The hon. Member for Billericay is at least more honest than the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), who said that the local community does not want the cuts and that he has much sympathy with the people at the town hall who do not want their jobs to go. He said that it must be the nasty borough councillors who are squandering the extra £1·7 million, not on the jobs in the town hall, which he wishes to protect, nor on the services that the people want, but on mega, magic attendance allowances. We know that that is nonsense and the hon. Gentleman knows it, too.

Mr. Gould: He does not.

Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps he does not know that it is nonsense, but he will get his come-uppance at the general election for not knowing what he is talking about and for trying to have it both ways.
Let us consider the honest, decent John Major face of Conservatism in the form of the hon. Members who represent Warwickshire. I have never seen a group whose members were so sycophantic towards each other. It is all wonderful stuff—no one wants to cut the police, everyone wants the motorways to be checked regularly and no one wants poll tax capping in Warwickshire. Even the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) does not want poll tax capping in Streatham—he wants it down the road in Vauxhall or in Norwood. He does not want Streatham baths to be closed, and nor do we. We do not want anyone's baths to be closed. We want decent services provided by local people and funded by a decent balance between local and national expenditure.
Of course, we want people in Warwickshire to be proud of the education provided there. We want them to fight for


the services that they believe to be right for them. I commend the hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington and for Rugby and Kenilworth and all those who represent Warwickshire. They are right to support the belief in services to local people—whether it is the fire service which is under threat or decent provision in schools. All those things matter, and they matter in Langbaurgh, Bristol and Norwich. Only local people can determine what is right for them. The Government have no right to tell the people of Stoke-on-Trent that they must spend £2·2 million less than they intended to spend. It is not a profligate authority.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Ipswich who said that he did not want to rub shoulders with Lambeth, Somerset, Warwickshire or Langbaurgh. He did not want to rub shoulders with anyone if he could help it. We want to rub shoulders with people who believe in a sense of community, who want to restore a sense of service and who take the Prime Minster at face value. He and members of the Cabinet keep telling us that they now believe in public service, in quality and in public spending, but not in local authorities, and certainly not in the 14 capped authorities.
Much depends on whom one goes to. If one goes to the hard man, the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, would one believe that one would get a shift in one's budget? Four authorities went to him, made their case and pleaded their point. They included that bastion of revolutionary socialism, Lambeth. Four authorities went to the nice guy, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Who got the uplift? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who clearly did not have authority to do anything, told Stoke-on-Trent that it was wonderful and gave it nothing. He also gave nothing to the other three authorities that visited him. Mr. Hard Guy, whose reputation is in severe danger of crumbling at this last hurdle before the general election, allocated the four authorities that saw him an uplift. There is a lesson in that. If the other six had gone to the Secretary of State, they would have been given a budget increase, not a decrease.
We all know that the Secretary of State does not believe in capping, and nor did the previous Secretary of State or his predecessor even though he took a Billericay view of the world. Nobody, except one or two of the hon. Members who have spoken tonight, who have to say that they support capping to show that they still cling to the hard-line policy of the Minister of State, really believes in it. The fact that there have had to be adjustments shows that all the capping is, at the bottom line, nonsense.
The standard spending assessments on which the figures are predicated are nonsense. In the Local Government Chronicle survey last week, 83 per cent. of treasurers said clearly that they thought that the system was flawed. It does not stand up to scrutiny and it should not do. The SSAs were never intended to be used for determining the exact level of spending in any individual local authority. No Government can know what individual councils should spend. No Minister, no matter how wise, can know the circumstances on the ground. He cannot know about the gaps in the pavement in Billericay, about the temperature of the water in Streatham or whether the council is giving good or bad value for money in Bristol or in Kingswood. Only local people can make a

judgment. A decent and fair local democratic system, with annual elections, as we have suggested, and with intervention on quality, not on reducing service, will achieve the results.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) suggested early in the debate that reducing people's services somehow increased value for money. It does not. What counts is intervention to improve management, to increase training and to ensure that services are delivered flexibly and sensitively for people who need them, not massive cuts in the budgets and the provision of services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood said, when voluntary sector groups find that their grants are cut and when people discover that their services have gone, they ask one simple question—"Why?"
It is clear tonight that the answer ranges over a number of pounds. In Warwickshire, the figure is £9. For a few pounds a year—not a week—does one get the service that one wants or the service that the Government will foist on people? At last, the Government have decided that they will overcome the pretence that there are good and bad authorities. From the beginning of June when we debate the Bill that the Government will introduce, every local authority is a bad authority. Every authority will have to be whipped into line. Every authority will have to be overseen by a central Government who cannot allow diversity and decentralisation, and who cannot let local democracy work. A dictatorship of parliamentary democracy is no democracy at all.
To add insult to injury, it is those authorities which have fallen into line—the Minister was right when he said this—in terms of getting below the cap which should also be considered tonight. Until the Minister for Public Transport with responsibility for roads and traffic wrote to me yesterday, the Government intended to continue to cap the south Yorkshire authorities for spending on supertram money that they were receiving from the Department of Transport. As daft and stupid a way of running a system I cannot imagine.
Every authority has been affected because they have all had to make cuts. My authority has had to cut 1,300 posts this year. It is a crime that the streets are dirty. It is a crime that education has been cut in the way that it has. It is disgraceful that we cannot care for the elderly. There is only one set of people to blame and it is those on the Conservative Benches tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): This has been an important and long debate. After some four hours, I shall do my best to answer the large number of points raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I am grateful to many of my hon. Friends for their contributions to this debate. Warwickshire has been represented in force by my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) who have spoken or intervened. In addition, my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) have been present in the Chamber for some hours.
We have also enjoyed interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and for Billericay


(Mrs. Gorman), whose colourful performance enlivened the debate no end. She is absolutely right. I did indeed meet councillors and council officers from her borough on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) made a powerful argument and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), speaking in her traditional and forthright way, enlivened the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) brought a powerful argument to bear on the situation there. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who made an important contribution which was none the less for the staggering attacks made on him by an Opposition Member. My hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) also made important contributions. I shall attempt to deal with some of the points that they raised, but if time marches on too quickly I may not be able to answer all of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay brought to my attention the fact that it was alleged that her council, Basildon, had not had the opportunity of making its voice heard. That is not so. I met a deputation from the council on 9 May and councillor Ballard is reported in the local newspaper as saying:
It was a friendly, constructive and helpful discusssion. We put all our cards on the table and the minister listened sympathetically.
We have heard tonight that my hard and hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities has turned into the soft man and it is now the turn of the new hard man to wind up tonight's debate. I start by making it clear that the aim of capping is to require authorities to cut their budgets to a level which is not excessive. It is only when we have been convinced that we could not demand that of an authority that we have decided to require a somewhat smaller reduction. In the case of Stoke-on-Trent and Norwich we were satisfied that it was right to require the full reduction for 1991–92. For Ipswich and Basildon we decided that——

Ms. Walley: rose——

Mr. Key: The hon. Lady must contain herself. I promise that I will answer the points concerning Stoke, but if she insists on intervening I shall be less likely to get there.
When we proposed our initial caps for Ipswich and Basildon we decided that in their circumstances some small reduction in 1991–92 was appropriate. We considered all the information submitted by the councils and we made our judgments. It is nonsense to suggest that the decisions are unfair or that the process is cloaked in secrecy. All the councils were given every opportunity to make their case for a higher cap. They took advantage of that opportunity. We listened carefully but concluded that our original judgments were, in most cases, right.
Let me start with the standard spending assessments. We have heard a lot this evening about how inadequate they are. I am at a loss to understand how hon. Members can make that accusation. SSAs are 19·4 per cent. up on last year. Hon. Members may say that that is hopelessly inadequate, but 237 local authorities throughout the country have budgeted within their SSAs. Across the country as a whole, the total of local authority budgets is just a half of 1 per cent. above total standard spending. Our approach has been that authorities budgeting a large

amount over SSA must have smaller increases in their spending. The capping criteria reflect that. The eight authorities in this order are the only ones that failed to exercise the necessary restraint. It is gratifying that so many authorities have this year budgeted sensibly. We are pledged to encouraging them to do that in the future.
If the House approves the draft orders, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make them shortly thereafter and notices will be served on the local authorities concerned. We hope to do that very quickly. Authorities will then have 21 days to set their new, lower budgets. Charge payers should receive their lower bills next month.
Several Opposition Members have told chilling tales about the effects of capping on education, the social services and the police. I believe that many of these tales are mischievous. They have caused unnecessary anguish to parents and elderly people. The evidence is different. In many authorities capping is encouraging imaginative new ideas about how services are to be provided. Well-managed authorities are moving away from 100 per cent. local authority provision of, for example, residential care, or by stimulating co-operation with the private and voluntary sectors and by setting charges that reflect ability to pay. In education, 104 of the 109 education authorities are pursuing our education reforms without indulging in excessive budgets. Capping is providing a much-needed challenge to authorities that are notoriously inefficient. It is a tragedy that capping was needed to achieve that.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to Stoke-on-Trent as the "sick" city. We are very much aware of Stoke-on-Trent's circumstances. We looked carefully at the council's health profile of the city of Stoke-on-Trent that it sent to us and that we discussed. Stoke-on-Trent receives very substantial Government assistance. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities referred to some of it. However, the council chose to increase its budget to 14 per cent. over SSA, which itself had increased by over 26 per cent.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) asked me to explain why Stoke-on-Trent could have spent more last year than it is allowed to spend this year. Let us be clear. Stoke-on-Trent's budget last year was 24 per cent. above its SSA. It was on warning that the Government considered that it was spending too much then. But what did Stoke-on-Trent do? It increased its budget by 16·4 per cent.—hardly the act of an authority that is trying its best to restrain spending. The cap specified in the draft order allows a 7·3 per cent. increase. We believe that this is reasonable and perfectly achievable for Stoke-on-Trent.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said that last year the Minister had said that a £33·7 million budget was appropriate and proper. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted what was said. Last year, as this year, the appropriate level of spending is the standard spending assessment. Last year, Stoke-on-Trent budgeted 24 per cent. above SSA. Such a spending level is far from appropriate; we have never said otherwise. I accept that we did not cap Stoke-on-Trent last year. That is because last year we had a per adult element in our criteria. Therefore, we capped only those authorities that were most substantially in excess of the SSA. This year, having announced our provisional criteria in advance, it


was right for us to act wherever a budget was excessive, or represented an excessive increase. We have done that. That is why Stoke-on-Trent has been capped.
I do not say that Stoke should be compared only with the other district councils around. Warrington has many of the problems of Stoke. Stoke receives 13 per cent. more SSA per adult than Warrington. However, we could go on for a long time with such comparisons, and I must move on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington spoke at some length about SSAs. We are beginning to discuss with local authority associations the SSA methodology for next year. We shall, of course, consider carefully any fresh evidence about SSAs. We are more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and other Warwickshire Members to discuss the position of Warwickshire county council.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) also had a good deal to say about SSAs. He said that they were arbitrary and that decisions on distribution of revenue support grant were taken by unaccountable people in Whitehall. All the SSA calculations are discussed with local authority associations and proposals are put out to consultation every year. The final distribution report is debated in the House. Opposition Members can hardly claim that decisions are taken in secret.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North compared Norwich with the rest of Norfolk. I am grateful to him for comparing Labour Norwich and the surrounding Conservative districts. Labour Norwich set a budget £36 per adult above SSA. Breckland set a budget £24 below SSA. Broadland set a budget £29 below SSA. Kings Lynn and West Norfolk set a budget £35 below SSA. South Norfolk set a budget £25 below SSA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North spoke eloquently about the heritage of Norwich. There are many similarities between his constituency and mine of Salisbury. They are both beautiful ancient cities. We accept that Norwich has greater needs. It is a regional centre and has more social disadvantage. Salisbury's SSA is £103 per adult. Norwich's SSA is £141 per adult—37 per cent. more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth spoke about police authorities. That is an important point. The Government are fully committed to effective policing. The number of police officers has risen by some 15,000 men and women since 1979. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a further increase of 700 posts last December. We provided £4·67 billion for police expenditure this year—11·8 per cent. more ·than in 1990–91. For every £20 that police authorities spend, central Government funding meets about £17. I should add that, in Warwickshire, the police SSA increased by 12·4 per cent. compared with the shire county average of 10·5 per cent. The police service SSA for all forces other than the Metropolitan force is based on police establishments approved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked me three questions. On the question about Wandsworth, Wirral as a whole does not have the needs of, say, Liverpool, Manchester or Wandsworth. It is much closer

in character to St. Helens or Sefton and has an SSA to match its characteristics. Wirral's SSA is up 19·2 per cent. over last year. That is a generous increase.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Birkenhead said that Wirral had been penalised because it had a low base from the previous Conservative administration. If we had made a special allowance for spending from balances, Wirral would have had the benefit of that additional spending not once but twice, because it would have been built into the budget for this year. We capped Wirral because it pushed up its demands on taxpayers by 20 per cent. compared with last year. That was too much.
Thirdly, the hon. Member for Birkenhead asked me about taking restraining measures against police and transport authorities, over which he said that Wirral had no control. The police and transport authorities are in a different position from that of the local authority. The police budget does not come within Wirral's budget. It has no bearing on whether Wirral is capped. But if a metropolitan police authority had budgeted excessively, we would have capped it. I accept that the transport authority's budget affects Wirral's budget. But Wirral is represented on that authority and it cannot claim that it has no say in the transport authority's budget.
Local authorities have to play their part in restraining public expenditure. If they do not, the Government cannot stand by. Inflation is now running at just about 6 per cent. Would Opposition Members stand idly by and let those authorities take ever more than their fair share of the nation's resources? We could not do so, and we have not done so.
I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 191.

Division No. 151]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Aitken, Jonathan
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Amos, Alan
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Atkinson, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Churchill, Mr


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Conway, Derek


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Body, Sir Richard
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cormack, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Durant, Sir Anthony






Dykes, Hugh
Maclean, David


Emery, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Favell, Tony
Madel, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Malins, Humfrey


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maples, John


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marland, Paul


Fookes, Dame Janet
Marlow, Tony


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Franks, Cecil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Mates, Michael


French, Douglas
Maude, Hon Francis


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardiner, Sir George
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mills, Iain


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Sir David


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grist, Ian
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hague, William
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hannam, John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Norris, Steve


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James
Portillo, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Powell, William (Corby)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Price, Sir David


Holt, Richard
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Redwood, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunter, Andrew
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Irvine, Michael
Rost, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Hon Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Kilfedder, James
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shelton, Sir William


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Latham, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speed, Keith


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speller, Tony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Steen, Anthony


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis





Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stokes, Sir John
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Summerson, Hugo
Warren, Kenneth


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thorne, Neil
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. David Lightbown and


Walden, George
Mr. John M. Taylor




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fearn, Ronald


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Fisher, Mark


Alton, David
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Fraser, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fyfe, Maria


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Galloway, George


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beith, A. J.
Gordon, Mildred


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gould, Bryan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Graham, Thomas


Benton, Joseph
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boyes, Roland
Grocott, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Hain, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Haynes, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Buckley, George J.
Henderson, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Geraint


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Crowther, Stan
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David


Darling, Alistair
Lamond, James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livsey, Richard


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Loyden, Eddie


Eadie, Alexander
McAllion, John


Eggar, Tim
McCartney, Ian


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fatchett, Derek
McKelvey, William






McLeish, Henry
Robinson, Geoffrey


McMaster, Gordon
Rogers, Allan


McWilliam, John
Rooker, Jeff


Madden, Max
Rooney, Terence


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ruddock, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheerman, Barry


Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maxton, John
Short, Clare


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael, Alun
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stott, Roger


Mowlam, Marjorie
Strang, Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nellist, Dave
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, William
Vaz, Keith


O'Hara, Edward
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Parry, Robert
Wareing, Robert N.


Patchett, Terry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Pawsey, James
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pike, Peter L.
Wilson, Brian


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Primarolo, Dawn
Worthington, Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wray, Jimmy


Radice, Giles
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Randall, Stuart



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Reid, Dr John
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Richardson, Jo
Mr. Jack Thompson


Robertson, George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.

PETITIONS

Red Route Pilot Scheme (Islington)

Mr. Chris Smith: I have the honour to present on behalf of 788 of my constituents and others 15 petitions relating to the introduction by the Department of Transport of a pilot red route along the line of the A1 through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
The first petition is a petition of the staff of Islington Green school, with 43 signatures on it, saying that they complain that the proposed pilot scheme for red routes in London will irretrievably damage the ancient shopping and business streets and communities through which the pilot route passes, and they note that it excites strong and widespread opposition. That indeed is the case.
There is a petition from the proprietor and shoppers of "At the Sign of the Chest of Drawers" in Upper street, London N1, signed by 18 people. That petition says that the pilot scheme for red routes introduced in January 1991 along Upper street, has damaged the trade and access to local shopping along the implemented section and is strongly opposed by the petitioners.
There is a petition with 11 signatures from the staff and clients of SSS Dry Cleaners of 264 Upper street London N1. They say that the red route pilot scheme involving parking and loading restrictions has had a detrimental effect on their right to trade and to accessible local services.
There is a petition with 252 signatures from the proprietor, staff and users of Canonbury Art and Picture Framers of 266 Upper street, London N1. They say that the red route pilot scheme as implemented on Upper street has proved detrimental to their trade, has limited access to local shopping and indeed threatens irreparable harm to the local business community. That is a sentiment that I entirely share and endorse.
There is a petition containing 42 signatures from the staff and customers of the Canonbury Book Shop of 271 Upper street, London N1 . They say that the A1 red route
implemented on our stretch of Upper Street … has made shopping increasingly difficult because of parking restrictions, has made business difficult because of loading restrictions and is therefore opposed by your petitioners.
There is a petition from the proprietor and customers of a secondhand furniture store at 209–11 Holloway road, London N7. It states that the pilot scheme has seriously affected the ability of the business to carry out trade, which necessitates loading and unloading heavy items of furniture. It says that it is difficult for the proprietor and difficult for customers, and is affecting the proprietor's livelihood, in common with many other traders along the red route.
There is a petition from the owner, staff and customers of Formsigns of 537 Holloway road, London N19. They say that their business has been seriously affected by the parking and loading restrictions that have been imposed as a result of the red route experiment, and that they have lost 30 to 40 per cent. of their business. Their customers go elsewhere because of the inconvenience in finding parking space and of having to carry heavy goods a long way. They claim that fellow traders are equally badly affected and


that shops and businesses are closing, with a downgrading effect on the whole neighbourhood, which has received no benefit from the scheme.
There is a petition containing 72 signatures from the proprietor, staff and customers of the Kebab House and Restaurant of 544 Holloway road. They say that the red route scheme means that their customers cannot stop and park. They say that they experience difficulty with their meat deliveries. They claim that this has meant a 50 per cent. cut in their take-away and restaurant trade. They believe that that is not good either for the local community.
There is a petition containing 35 signatures from the proprietor and customers of News and Food of 651 Holloway road, London N19. The petition states that the red route experiment along the Holloway road has had a serious effect on the business because people cannot stop to shop, and if they do they receive a ticket or can be towed away. It is claimed that the situation is especially serious for customers with disabilities who want to stop as near to the shop as is possible. It is said that shops will close because of the experiment.
There is a petition bearing four signatures from the London Trophy Company of 653 Holloway road, London N19. The petition states that the business is seriously affected by the experimental red route on the Holloway road. The business depends on ease of access to customers. As it is a specialist London-wide company, customers who have difficulty in stopping, parking or collecting their goods are unlikely to come to the shop again.
There is a petition containing 36 signatures from the proprietor, staff, customers and distributors of Moonlight Collection of 660A Holloway road, London N19. It says that the business is badly affected because of the loading difficulties that are associated with the experimental red route, such that they cannot go about their business easily, and nor can their customers or collectors for retail outlets.
There is a petition with 53 signatures from the buyers at Pure Groove Records of 679 Holloway road, London N19. It shows
that the Red Routes are preventing us from doing business in the store easily meaning that the place is losing money and could close down. This is a specialist place and must not be allowed to go.
There is a petition with 40 signatures from the proprietor of La Boulangerie at 746 Holloway road, London N19, and his staff and customers. It says that the experimental traffic scheme, the Red Route, is damaging his business, affecting his customers so that they do not want to shop there, and damaging other traders next to him.
There is a petition with 55 signatures from the proprietor and customers of a florist's store at 748 Holloway road, London N19, which says that
the Red Route Pilot scheme is having a deleterious effect on our business. We rely on people being able to stop easily to buy flowers and they are now unable to do this. We are also concerned that people with disabilities are not allowed to stop to shop and have been ticketed and asked to move on—this is unacceptable. All local shopping is affected by this scheme and this has an adverse effect on the neighbourhood.
Finally, there is a petition with 69 signatures from the staff and customers of Crest Wines of 790 Holloway road, London N19. They say that
the Red Route Pilot scheme has damaged local trade to the extent that it may not recover, has made it very difficult for people with disabilities to shop locally, has made Holloway Road itself less safe for pedestrians because traffic speeds have increased and has proved to be of no benefit to the local community whatsoever whilst creating an urban highway

dedicated to car commuters speeding through Archway on their way to the City or Docklands. The local community, especially the business community, will die.
That petition is not exaggerated. The feeling of local people, and especially of local traders, is accurately reflected in the petitions. There is an enormous depth of feeling about this issue locally and I hope that the Secretary of State for Transport will take some notice, for once, of the views of local people about this matter.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I rise to present 19 petitions concerning the introduction of a red route pilot scheme along the Holloway road through my constituency, with 1,301 supporting signatures on them.
These petitions come from the owners and customers of a large number of small businesses along the route who are quite rightly concerned about the safety and the future of the community and the increasing volumes of traffic that they believe that the red route is likely to bring.
The first petition is
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of owner, staff and customers of Chris Stevens Ltd., Tile and Mosaic Supplies, 561 Holloway Road, London N19.
Sheweth that the Red Route scheme as implemented on the Holloway Road has made it difficult to carry out our trade, our suppliers find it difficult to make deliveries and our clients are hampered in collecting their goods. Our trade relies on people being able to park and load easily …
We are an important local trader with spin off for other trades e.g. newsagents and cafes—the red route is affecting all local trade and may mean closures in some cases. This has a serious effect on local businesses and the local community. We are also seriously concerned about pedestrians using the zebra crossing near us, women, children and older people are particularly at risk from the traffic speeds and the inability of some traffic to pull up easily.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Transport to abandon the A1 Red Route pilot scheme now and protect our local shopping. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
This petition is supported by 436 signatures.
The next petition is from the staff and customers of the pet shop at 620 Holloway road. It says that they have had a 20 to 30 per cent. loss of trade. The route is damaging to local shopping and has made Holloway road less safe for pedestrians because of increased traffic speeds. The scheme is therefore damaging the whole community. It, too, asks for the abandonment of the scheme.
The next is from the residents of Ferntower road, which is some way from the Holloway road but people from there use the area for their shopping. The petition shows that
the proposed pilot scheme of red routes in London will irretrievably damage the ancient shopping and business streets and communities through which the pilot route passes and excites strong and widespread opposition.
The petition asks for the scheme to be abandoned, and seeks increased investment in public transport.
The next petition is from the owner and customers of the Aviation book shop at 656 Holloway road, where business is badly affected by
restrictions imposed by the red route.
As a specialist shop, it finds it difficult because of people's inability to make deliveries and of customers' inability to get to the shop.
There is also a petition from Archway News, of 693 Holloway road, showing that the red route pilot scheme is a
blight on the community … is affecting our local businesses. People can no longer stop to shop. People crossing the road are in ever increasing danger from faster traffic, and supplies cannot be delivered. Residents cannot park because cars use up the space and shops are beginning to lose out.
Again, the petitioners ask that the scheme be abandoned and that local shopping facilities be protected. I can well understand their feelings, as I use that shop myself.
The customers of Andrewes cafe at 782 Holloway road say that
the red routes are bad for local business and for the community, and particularly for those with disabilities who want to stop and go into shops
and find their vehicles ticketed as a result.
Customers of the cafe at 628 Holloway road say:
the operation of the red routes is affecting local shopping badly. Shopkeepers find it difficult to maintain their businesses because loading is difficult and because people can no longer stop to shop. Local residents cannot park near our homes because the space is taken up by large numbers of cars, and crossing Holloway road has become dangerous and difficult.
I have another petition, from the customers of the New York Pizza at 624 Holloway road. It makes similar points about the difficulties of receiving deliveries. It is also difficult for people to come into this shop. The petition also asks for the scheme to be abandoned.
Staff and customers of the Delight supermarket on Holloway road have also presented a petition. I know it well; it is an important local facility:
Parking, and particularly the loading restrictions outside the store, are having a damaging effect on our trade because of the difficulty of having goods delivered to the shop for sale.
There is a petition from the staff and customers of Sam's News, of 638 Holloway road, showing that
the red route experiment on the Holloway road has cut our trade in half and is having an equally serious effect on other local shops which the local community rely on. A lot of our customers want to maintain local shopping. Holloway road is in danger of becoming an urban highway, with no shops.
I fully understand and agree with that sentiment.
I have here a petition from the staff and customers of Lazio's jewellers, of 677 Holloway road, stating that
the experimental red route scheme in operation on the Holloway road prevents people from stopping and receiving deliveries to the shops.
There is a petition from the customers and users of Motorman, of 621 Holloway road, showing that the red route pilot scheme is
an unmitigated disaster for shoppers and traders alike.
A petition from the staff and students of the polytechnic of north London, which has buildings on both sides of the Holloway road and in other parts of north London, says that the pilot scheme for red routes in London will
irretrievably damage ancient shopping and business streets and communities through which the pilot route passes and excites widespread opposition.

A petition from a company called Chris Fitzgerald, of 670 to 672 Holloway road, shows that lack of shopping facilities in the district is damaging to it. The petition is supported and signed by 18 people who would like the scheme to be abandoned.
A petition from the staff and customers of Car Parts, at 552 Holloway road, states:
the red route scheme has damaged our trade, made it difficult for our clients to use the shop and is damaging the trade of other local shops.
It has 72 signatures.
There is a petition from the shoppers of a television repairs and electrical goods shop at 548 Holloway road. It is a typical local shop that performs a valuable service. The petition states that the red route scheme introduced in Holloway road in January 1991 has meant that the shop has lost customers. It states that there has been a
20 per cent. loss in takings, it is very difficult for our customers who are bringing larger goods to the shop because they can't stop outside, it also makes it difficult for us to get our deliveries, and our neighbouring traders are also affected; thus there is a serious effect on local shopping for customers and traders alike.
That petition has 54 signatures.
There is a petition from the owners and customers of Dan's cafe, at 673 Holloway road, showing that the red route scheme has had a serious effect on the trade of the cafe. That has 51 customers' signatures.
There is a petition from the owners of the franchise of the Perfect Pizza restaurant at 663 Holloway road showing that
the red route experimental scheme has had a disastrous effect on take-away trade and deliveries by car, and that bikes cannot stop at the premises, which means that people look elsewhere.
There is a petition from the customers and staff of the Chip Inn fish bar, of 193 Holloway road, showing that the scheme has
seriously affected our business which relied on passing and stopping trade and has also made it dangerous for children crossing the Holloway Road because of speeding traffic.
That petition has 72 signatures.
I am pleased to be able to present those petitions and well understand the sentiment behind them. Like those people who have signed the petitions, I live in the district and am devastated to see shop after shop go out of business. As they do so, the community along the Holloway road is gradually being killed off. We want public transport, not cars speeding through our community. That is the nub of the argument behind the petitions. I hope that the Secretary of State for Transport will end the ridiculous experiment as soon as possible so that the local community can get on with its life. The Department of Transport should put time, energy and resources into improving public transport so that we can use it rather than having subsidised company cars speeding through our community.

To lie upon the Table.

Planning Decisions

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. Toby Jessel: Before starting the Adjournment debate, I should be grateful if, as chairman of the all-party Indo-British parliamentary group, I could put on record the heartfelt sympathy of British parliamentarians for the people of India in the grievous blow that they have suffered tonight with the brutal assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discusss the role of public opinion in planning decisions, whether taken by local councils or Ministers. Planning applications to construct large, new buildings almost always give rise to strong feelings, whether for or against. Often, there is much at stake, such as a conflict of interest between the prosperity of one group of people that clashes with the view or quality of life of others.
Parliament has enacted rules and procedures to try to ensure that decisions are fair. Public inquiries are set up to be something like law courts with lawyers. But there is a difference. Law courts are not democratically accountable to the public for their decisions, but local councils or the Government, in the value-judgments that they make when taking planning decisions, are. The public, who are increasingly consulted, expect planning authorities not only to take local opinion into account, but to act on it, especially if that local public opinion happens to lean heavily in one direction and if the planning arguments for and against an application are more or less equally balanced.
To establish some general principles relative to the role of public opinion in planning decisions, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment some questions. First, can he give clear confirmation that, in his view, public opinion ought to have a role in planning decisions; that it in fact has a role; and that this will remain Government policy? Secondly, may I draw his attention to a document published by his Department PPG1, dated January 1988 and entitled "Planning Policy Guidance: General Policy and Principles"? Under the heading
The purpose of the planning system",
paragraph 18 contains the following passage:
Any relevant views expressed by third parties, by local residents and other neighbouring occupiers of land should be taken into account in determining planning applications … While the substance of local opposition must be considered, the duty is to decide each case on its planning merits … on its own, local opposition to a proposal is not a ground for the refusal of planning permission unless that opposition is founded upon valid planning reasons which are supported by substantial evidence.
Can my hon. Friend say whether the converse is true—whether, if local opposition is founded on valid planning reasons which are supported by substantial evidence, local opposition is a ground for the refusal of planning permission?
Thirdly—given the growing tendency for local councils all over the country to consult local residents for their opinions, whether in writing or through their speaking before planning committees or sub-committees—can my hon. Friend confirm that that trend is welcome to the Government? Fourthly, if local consultation is seen as desirable, does it not follow that weight should be given by

planning authorities to the opinions of the public? In other words, there is no point in consulting unless one intends to give weight to the views derived from that consultation.
Fifthly, if when it is considering a planning application it is desirable and proper for a local planning authority to consult local public opinion and then give weight to it, is it not equally proper and desirable for the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Ministers in his Department who advise him, when acting as a planning authority on appeal or following a call-in, to give just the same weight to public opinion as they would expect a local council to do? Sixthly, if so, when the Secretary of State is deciding on a planning application, or on an appeal, should not this concept of consultation include evidence given by local people to the public inquiry? Otherwise, the inquiry inspector has no direct means of consulting the public.
Seventhly, can my hon. Friend confirm that, as stated in my debate on the application for a heliport in central London a year ago, the proportion of those cases where on appeal the Secretary of State decides differently from the recommendation of the planning inquiry inspector is still about 10 per cent.?
I wish to illustrate these general points on the role of public opinion in planning decisions with reference to one particular planning application by Marks and Spencer to construct large buildings in a conservation area close by a beautiful stretch of the River Thames at Twickenham. As the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment is pending—which puts all Ministers in the Department of the Environment in a quasi-judicial position—my constituents will understand that I cannot ask my hon. Friend at this stage to say anything whatever about the merits of the case for or against. I can only ask him to take note of my views. I should add that I am not introducing any new material that was not available to the inquiry, at which I gave evidence.
The Department of the Environment is aware of the great concern of my constituents, since on 22 October I asked to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who was then the Secretary of State for the Environment, to request him to set up a public inquiry so that my constituents could make their views heard—whether for or against—after which the inspector would make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. Richmond upon Thames borough council, which had reached some agreement with Marks and Spencer, had obviously made up its mind, come what may, to grant planning permission to Marks and Spencer, despite growing local opposition to the scheme. I should say that that opposition related to the site. People liked the idea of a Marks and Spencer shop somewhere in Twickenham, but many people thought that it would be on the wrong site if it were beside the historic conservation area close by the River Thames.
In asking the Secretary of State to call in the planning decision—so that after the planning inquiry he, not the borough council, would have to decide—I argued that the application was not only of local concern but of wider regional interest. I quoted to him the Greater London development plan of some 20 years ago, which said:
The Thames constitutes perhaps the greatest of all London's areas of special character. Its condition and future are matters of strategic concern to the whole of London".
I showed the Secretary of State the map, illustrating the fact that, within Greater London, along the Thames there


are three stretches of exceptional interest or beauty—at Greenwich, in central London and from Kew to Hampton Court. The site in question at Twickenham is near the centre of that stretch.
I turn now to the public inquiry, which took place between 5 and 11 February. There were eight witnesses in favour of the application, of whom six were consultants paid by Marks and Spencer for the purpose of giving technical evidence in support of the application; the seventh was a representative of the chamber of commerce and the eighth was the borough planning officer of Richmond upon Thames borough council, which was committed to support the scheme.
More than 40 witnesses gave notice to the inspector conducting the inquiry that they intended to give evidence against the scheme. They were discouraged by the inspector from overlapping or repetition, but more than 30 witnesses gave evidence. They included representatives of most of the main local amenity societies in Twickenham —for example, Mr. Beccles-Wilson, who is chairman of Strawberry Hill residents association and chairman of the Twickenham Town Committee; Mr. Plummer, chairman of the Twickenham Society; Dr. Payan, who is chairman of the York House Society; Mr. Greenwood, who is chairman of Richmond upon Thames Arts Council; Miss Schooling, who is secretary of the Twickenham Town Committee and founder of Friends of Radnor Gardens; Mr. Parton, representing the River Thames Society, which goes beyond my constituency; Dr. Helen Baker, who is chairman of the Pre-school Playgroups Association, which has a playgroup on the site; and Mrs. Pamela Moore of the East Twickenham and Riverside residents association.
The opposition stretched across all political parties. On the Conservative side, I gave evidence, as did the former mayor, Mrs. Ford Miller. Three representatives of the Twickenham Labour party gave evidence, including my prospective opponent in the general election. On the Liberal side, Mr. Bamber Gascoigne, the well-known broadcaster who lives locally, gave evidence. In addition, some eminent local individual residents gave evidence, including Professor Sir John Hale, the former chairman of the trustees of the National Gallery and also professor of Italian history at London university. Evidence was also given against the scheme by Mr. Richard Rogers, who is one of the greatest architects in the world. A considerable number of individual constituents also gave evidence against the scheme. There can therefore be no doubt about the range of local opinion against the scheme.
As the merits of the scheme will, I am sure, have been assessed impartially by the inspector, who impressed everyone by the way in which he handled the inquiry, it would be best if I continued on the theme of the strength of local opinion. A majority of local public opinion in Twickenham is now against the application. Originally, that was not the case. The borough council carried out a planning exercise in the consultation of February and March 1990. At that stage, there was a slight majority in favour of the scheme, but opinion locally has changed during 1990 and I believe that that has continued in the early part of 1991.
The change can be assessed from six different measures. Taken separately, perhaps, each falls short of being conclusive, but taken together they amount, as far as I can

judge, to a clear sign that opinion is against the application. By 22 September—the evening when the council intended to decide for the scheme—the borough council had received 157 objections and 14 letters in favour —a ratio of 11 to one against. On 18 September I had chaired a public meeting that I had called and, after a full discussion, 154 people voted against the application and 11 were in favour of it.
By 22 October the Secretary of State for the Environment had received 120 letters asking him to call in the application, and only three asking him not to call it in. Of the latter, one was from Marks and Spencer, one was from Richmond council and there was one other. As the call-in would provide the only chance for a refusal of the application—whereas a decision not to call in would, because of the council planning committee's contingent decision on 22 September, result automatically in planning permission—it can be assumed that the 120 were not in favour of the application, while the three who wrote in against the call-in would have been in favour of it.
A form of survey conducted by two local newspapers resulted in a vote of 91 in favour of the scheme and 120 against. Letters to the Richmond and Twickenham Times totalled 35 against the scheme and seven for it. At the inquiry, about 40 witnesses were against the scheme and eight, to whom I referred earlier, were in favour.
I am therefore satisfied that there is overwhelming public opposition to this scheme. I hope that the Department of the Environment will decide against the scheme and that it will give such a decision as soon as possible in order not to prolong the uncertainty.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on obtaining this opportunity for raising an important issue which is a source of concern to many people. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, I cannot comment on the merits of the proposal to develop the Twickenham swimming baths site as it is currently before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for decision. However, I want to deal with the general issues that my hon. Friend raised about public participation in the development control process and I will try to answer as many of his specific questions as possible. I pay tribute to the vigour with which my hon. Friend champions his constituents' interests. I have no doubt that he always takes full account of the strength of local opinion in his constituency.
The issue of public participation in the planning process was debated on 16 April during the Committee stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill. During that debate I said:
There is a need to ensure continuing public confidence in the development control process so that individual decisions are taken in the full knowledge of local opinion even if, as occasionally happens, those decisions do not reflect the wishes of the majority of local people."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 April 1991; c. 146.]
We all want planning decisions to be well informed and fair. To achieve that, it is essential for the process to be seen to be fair. That means, first, seeking to ensure that people who are likely to be affected by a development proposal are made aware of what is proposed. Secondly, it means giving them a chance to submit their views. Thirdly,


as my hon. Friend has said, it means giving due consideration to those views in the decision-making process.
A local planning authority, in considering a planning application—or the Secretary of State in considering a called-in planning application or appeal—is required to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material to the application, and to other material considerations. The Government have made it clear that an up-to-date local plan will carry considerable weight in reaching such development control decisions. We believe that the preparation of development plans—unitary development plans are currently being prepared in London—provides the opportunity for the expression of local choice in planning matters. When preparing its unitary development plan, the planning authority is required to give publicity to its draft proposals and to provide an opportunity for the public, whether as individuals or interested organisations, to express their views on them. In this context I note that the London borough council of Richmond has just published, on 13 May, its draft unitary development plan for consultation, and that neighbouring Kingston has recently completed the consultation stage on its plan.
The Government's long-held view has been that it was unnecessary to require publicity for every planning application in England and Wales. We took the view that any such statutory obligation would be bureaucratic, would place an unnacceptably large burden on the resources of local planning authorities, and would conflict with our policy of streamlining the planning system.
Recently, however, research has indicated that about 75 per cent. of local planning authorities in England and Wales undertake some form of neighbour notification, on the commendable ground that people should be made aware of what is happening in their areas. Furthermore, there is evidence that local authority involvement in the process of publicising planning applications need not be burdensome, with the increasing use of computers in local authorities' planning departments.
Accordingly, I announced to the House on 10 May that the Government had accepted the principle of publicity for all planning applications. My Department and the Welsh Office will consult publicly about what method or methods to adopt. We will issue a consultation paper by the end of June. I have already invited comments from the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office about their experience in this area. In pursuing this path, we must be mindful that the requirement, which will be introduced in the general development order, will need to apply to development proposals for garden sheds as well as for town centre redevelopments. We will seek views on the merits of making developers responsible for publicising their proposals, or for putting the onus on planning authorities. We will invite comments on the pros and cons of newspaper advertisements, site notices and individual notification of neighbours.
Whichever options we go for, I am sure that public confidence and respect for the planning process will be enhanced, and that there will be far less cause for people to complain that development proposals have been approved by their local council without local residents having had the chance to make their views known.
My hon. Friend is interested in the question of the rights of third parties at public local inquiries. Under rule 11(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries

Procedure) Rules 1988, third parties are able to make their views known at public local inquiries at the inspector's discretion. In practice, inspectors will listen to anyone who has something relevant to say, but we accept that the position may not be entirely clear from a reading of the inquiry rules. Consequently, a consultation paper, "The Review of the Town and Country Planning Inquiries Procedure Rules", issued by my Department on 26 March, contained the proposal that rule 11(2) should be recast to ensure that an inspector shall not unreasonably withhold permission for third parties to appear at a local inquiry.
That brings me to the points raised by my hon. Friend about the extent to which third party representations should be taken into account by local planning authorities and the Secretary of State when reaching decisions on planning applications. As my hon. Friend inquired on that point, I should say that the same weight must be placed whether the decision is being reached by the local planning authority or by the Secretary of State when the decision is being made.
The Government's guidance on this is set out in paragraph 18 of planning policy guidance note 1. That makes it clear that any relevant views expressed by third parties, by local residents and other neighbouring occupiers of land should be taken into account in determining planning applications. However, it goes on to state that, on its own, local opposition to a proposal is not a ground for the refusal of planning permission unless that opposition is founded upon valid planning reasons which are supported by substantial evidence, and that while the substance of local opposition must be considered, the duty is to decide each case on its planning merits.
Therefore, I hope that the message is clear. The views of local residents and other third parties should be taken into account as material considerations in the consideration of a planning application, provided those views are relevant to land-use planning matters. However, I must emphasise that, while relevant representations from third parties must be considered, they may be only one of many factors which decision makers in the planning process need to take into account.

Mr. Jessel: If consultation with the public has taken place, assuming that my hon. Friend accepts that the result of that consultation should carry some weight, does he accept that if public opinion is largely united and leans heavily in one direction it should carry more weight than if it is divided? Does he further accept that if the planning arguments are more or less equally balanced on a particular application, then public opinion, particularly if it leans heavily in one direction, would usually become more of a factor?.

Mr. Yeo: I am not sure. My hon. Friend is tempting me in directions along which I am not sure how far I can travel. It is clear that, if public opinion is soundly based on planning merits, the fact that it was substantially in one direction or another would clearly weigh more heavily in the mind of either the local planning authority or my right hon. Friend than if that public opinion was roughly divided in both directions. Provided that it is based on sound planning arguments, public opinion can give a clear signal.
The planning system is designed to reconcile conflicts between the need for development, which is necessary for the provision of jobs and the growth of the national


economy, with the need to protect the environment and local amenity. That process comes together in the form of the elected local planning authority or, in some cases, the Government in the form of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I know that my hon. Friend is also interested in the arrangements for notifying planning inspectors of relevant court judgments. In general, the Department's planning inspectorate ensures that inspectors are made aware of all judgments which have implications for the cases with which they are or are likely to be concerned.
On my hon. Friend's particular concern with the Twickenham inquiry, I can tell him that the inspector's report has not yet been received by the Department but that we expect to receive it shortly. I cannot say precisely when decisions will be issued on the case. The Department's aim is to reach decisions on called-in cases within 13 weeks of receipt of the inspector's report. However, because call-in cases are often, by their nature, the most controversial and complex of all planning cases, decisions can sometimes take longer to reach.

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to check that? He said just now that the Department had not received a report, but I was told by the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, whom I asked about this during the second week in April, that it was due to reach the Department's regional office that week. Could there be some distinction between the regional office and the headquarters?

Mr. Yeo: There may be some distinction, but as the time for this Adjournment debate is running out I may have to write to my hon. Friend to clarify that point. However, I can assure him that the Department tries to reach decisions as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, the complexity of some cases means that we do not always achieve our target of dealing with cases that have been called in within 13 weeks of receipt of the inspector's report.
My hon. Friend raised a point, which he also raised in an Adjournment debate at about this time last year, about the number of decisions that the Secretary of State takes that involve overturning the inspector's recommendations. In the year 1989–90, the Secretary of State issued 299 decisions following planning inquiries. Of these, 21—or just 7 per cent.—were contrary to the inspector's recommendations. That is marginally lower than the figures and the percentage given to my hon. Friend in his Adjournment debate last year. The number of decisions taken by the Secretary of State that are contrary to the inspector's recommendations represents under 0·1 per cent. of all the 26,500 appeal decisions issued during the year I mentioned.
I hope that what I have said in this brief debate has reassured my hon. Friend that, as far as practicable, given the statutory duties placed on local planning authorities and on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the planning system takes full account of the need to involve local residents and communities in the decision-making process.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.